U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

85–897 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 113–126

S. 235, THE ALASKA NATIVE TRIBAL HEALTH

CONSORTIUM LAND TRANSFER ACT; S. 920,

THE FOND DU LAC BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR

CHIPPEWA NON–INTERCOURSE ACT OF 2013;

AND S. 1352, THE NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING

ASSISTANCE AND SELF–DETERMINATION

REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2013

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 31, 2013

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, Chairwoman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Vice Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MARY J. PAVEL, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

DAVID A. MULLON JR., Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on July 31, 2013 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of Senator Barrasso ............................................................................... 2 

Statement of Senator Cantwell .............................................................................. 1

Statement of Senator Franken ............................................................................... 20

Statement of Senator Johnson ................................................................................ 27

Statement of Senator Tester ................................................................................... 23 

WITNESSES

Harris, Sarah, Chief of Staff to Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, U.S. 

Department of the Interior .................................................................................. 9

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10

Henriquez, Hon. Sandra, Assistant Secretary For Public And Indian Housing, 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ..................................... 11

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13

Keel, Hon. Jefferson, President, National Congress Of American Indians ......... 14

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16

Mcswain, Hon. Robert, Deputy Director for Management Operations, Indian 

Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services .................. 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4

Teuber, Andy, Chairman/President, Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium . 5

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7

APPENDIX

Brend, Toni Ann, Chairperson, Coquille Indian Housing Authority; Vice 

Chairperson, Coquille Tribal Council, prepared statement .............................. 40

Bryan, Annette, Executive Director, Puyallup Nation Housing Authority, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 34

Causley, Cheryl A., Executive Director, Bay Mills Indian Housing Authority; 

Chairwoman, National American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC), prepared statement ................................................................................................... 52

Diver, Hon. Karen R., Chairwoman, Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa, prepared statement ........................................................................... 30

Durglo, Hon. Joe, Chairman, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of 

the Flathead Indian Nation, prepared statement ............................................. 44

Gore, Carol, President/CEO, Cook Inlet Housing Authority, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 32

Masagatani, Jobie M. K., Chairman, Hawaiian Homes Commission, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 54

Schatz, Hon. Brian, U.S. Senator from Hawaii, prepared statement ................. 29

Thom, Hon. Michael, Chairman, Karuk Tribe Housing Authority; Vice-Chairman, Karuk Tribe, prepared statement ............................................................. 36

(1)

S. 235, THE ALASKA NATIVE TRIBAL HEALTH 

CONSORTIUM LAND TRANSFER ACT; S. 920, 

THE FOND DU LAC BAND OF LAKE

SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA NON–INTERCOURSE 

ACT OF 2013; AND S. 1352, THE NATIVE 

AMERICAN HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND 

SELF–DETERMINATION REAUTHORIZATION 

ACT OF 2013 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 2013

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room 

628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Maria Cantwell,

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

The CHAIRWOMAN. The Senate Indian Affairs Committee will 

come to order. 

This afternoon we are having a hearing on S. 235, the Alaska 

Native Tribal Health Consortium Land Transfer Act; S. 920, the 

Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Non-Intercourse Act 

of 2013, and S. 1352, the Native American Housing Assistance and 

Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2013. 

I want to thank the witnesses for being here, and my colleague, 

the Vice Chairman of the Committee. I am sorry we are late. A 

vote on the Floor kept us delayed. 

As I said, this afternoon, we are having a hearing on several 

bills. These bills address the issues at the core of tribal self-governance and self-determination: land and infrastructure. In order for 

tribes to thrive as governments, they need an adequate land base 

to provide for their members. Lands are vital for the basic tribal 

infrastructure needs such as educational facilities, elder care centers, natural resource protection and economic development 

projects. 

The two lands bills before us today will allow the impacted tribes 

to make the best use of their lands to improve the lives of members 

and their surrounding communities. S. 235, the Alaska Native 

Tribal Health Consortium Land Transfer Act, would transfer a parVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Dec 17, 2013 Jkt 085897 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\85897.TXT JACK
2

cel of land from the Department of Health and Human Services to 

the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium. With the transfer to 

the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, they will be able to 

construct a 170-room residential facility to accommodate patients 

from all over Alaska to receive treatment at the medical center. 

S. 920, the Fond du Lac Band legislation, will provide Congressional authority for land exchange between the Fond du Lac and 

Carlton County. This exchange will allow the Band to acquire 

lands held by the county within the reservation and the county will 

acquire lands owned by the Band within the county. The Band will 

be able to consolidate its land holdings on its reservation to provide 

housing for members as well as other activities like gathering and 

hunting, and the county will be able to use its acquired lands to 

enhance the county’s forestry resources. 

This bill is a good example of how effectively governments can 

work together in ways that are beneficial to the entire community. 

The final bill we will consider is S. 1352 reauthorization of the 

Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act. 

Senator Barrasso and I just introduced legislation with the support 

of many of our colleagues, Senators Johnson, Tester, Udall, 

Franken, Begich, Heitkamp, Schatz and Hirono. So a lot of people 

on the Committee. I want to thank all of them for their support. 

In April, we had an oversight hearing on Indian housing issues. 

We heard a lot about the crisis that still exists in Indian Country. 

Currently there are 200,000 housing units needed immediately in 

Indian Country, and 25 percent of American Indian housing units 

have ‘‘severe housing needs’’. This means that those homes lack 

basic plumbing or kitchen facilities or other important infrastructure. 

So the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act recognizes that tribal governments are in the best position 

to allocate their funds for their members and the Committee’s legislation would authorize the program for five years and streamline 

the processes among Federal agencies, provide support for Native 

American veterans and remove barriers for tribes to construct more 

sustainable housing. 

So I think this bipartisan bill sends a clear message. We need 

to act now on successful housing programs for Indian Country. The 

bill is critical to providing adequate resources, attracting economic 

development to reservations and providing homes for teachers and 

public safety officers. So I look forward to hearing all the witnesses 

today. 

Now I would like to turn it over to the Vice Chairman, Senator 

Barrasso, for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,

U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding 

this hearing on these bills. All of these bills are very important. 

Specifically, S. 1352, the reauthorization of the Native American 

Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, is important to all 

Indian tribes. Your leadership, Chairwoman Cantwell, on this reauthorization, is welcome and I am happy to co-sponsor this measure with you. 

3

I want to note that this bill would further streamline the bureaucracy experienced in Indian housing development. In addition, 

it would also provide mechanisms to increase funding resources or 

leverage for more housing development. With the tight budget conditions and limited private investment in Indian Country, these 

changes should help the important work of tribally-designated 

housing entities. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues on advancing this 

bill, so that the Indian housing act is reauthorized again. I also 

want to thank the witnesses for their testimony today. 

Thank you again, Madam Chairwoman. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

We are going to start with our witnesses. We will start with you, 

Mr. McSwain. Then we will just go down the line. Thank you for 

being here. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MCSWAIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR 

FOR MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS, INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Mr. MCSWAIN. Madam Chairwoman and members of the Committee, good afternoon. I am Robert McSwain, Deputy Director for 

Management Operations for the Indian Health Service. 

I am pleased to have the opportunity to testify on S. 235, the 

Alaska Native Health Consortium Land Transfer Act, providing for 

conveyance of Indian Health Service real property located in Anchorage, Alaska, to ANTHC. 

S. 235 would provide for the conveyance of certain property located in Anchorage, Alaska from the Federal Government to 

ANTHC in Anchorage, Alaska. It should be pointed out that 

ANTHC actually assumed responsibility for provision of the IHSfunded Health Service in 1999 under the authority of the Indian 

Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. 

The Federal property described in S. 235 is used in connection 

with health and related programs in Anchorage. In fact, just recently, we transferred the land to ANTHC, on June 25th, under a 

quitclaim deed. And it is recorded in the City of Anchorage. 

Previously, on April 26th, IHS had executed a memorandum of 

agreement with ANTHC which sets forth the terms and conditions 

under which easements will be established, so IHS could transfer 

the ownership of the property to ANTHC by quitclaim deed. S. 235 

provides for conveyance of the Anchorage property from the United 

States to ANTHC. It proposes to replace the quitclaim deed, transfer it by authorizing the use of a warranty deed. The easements, 

which will be established under the MOA, must be intact if a warranty deed is fully executed. 

IHS supports the bill because it views the proposed transfer as 

furthering the special partnership that exists with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, and moreover, it is in keeping with the Presidential Memorandum on Administrative Flexibility as it pertains to tribal governments. 

We have a couple of points on the bill that I would like to focus 

on. IHS believes the language relating to the following issues needs 

to be clarified or revised. Conveyance language should be revised 

to allow no less than 90 days to convey the property to ANTHC. 

4

Secondly, legal description language, now that we have done the 

quitclaim deed, we actually have a slight change in that, and that 

is where we have indicated in our testimony that it is Tract A–3A, 

Tudor Centre, according to plat no. 2013–43, slight change then 

which adds in the bill, but it is accurate in accordance with the 

current surveys that we have done and actually moving the 2.79 

acres over. 

We look forward to working with you, Madam Chairwoman, on 

measures to improve the health of the Alaska Native population. 

This concludes my testimony and I appreciate the opportunity to 

appear before you to discuss this important bill. I would be happy 

to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McSwain follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MCSWAIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR

MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS, INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Committee: 

Good afternoon. I am Robert McSwain, Deputy Director for Management Operations of the Indian Health Service (IHS). I am pleased to have the opportunity to 

testify on S. 235, the ‘‘Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) Land 

Transfer Act’’, providing for the conveyance of Indian Health Service (IHS) real 

property located in Anchorage, Alaska to ANTHC. 

The Indian Health Service (IHS) plays a unique role in the Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS) because it is a health care system that was established 

to meet the federal trust responsibility to provide health care to American Indians 

and Alaska Natives (AI/ANs). The mission of the IHS, in partnership with American 

Indian and Alaska Native people, is to raise the physical, mental, social, and spiritual health of AI/ANs to the highest level. The IHS provides comprehensive health 

service delivery to approximately 2.2 million AI/ANs through 28 Hospitals, 61 

health centers, 33 health stations and 3 school health centers. Tribes also provide 

healthcare access through an additional 16 hospitals, 235 health centers, 164 Alaska 

Village Clinics, 75 health stations and 6 school health centers. In support of the IHS 

mission, the IHS and Tribes provide access to functional, well maintained and accredited health care facilities and staff housing. 

S. 235 would provide for the conveyance of certain property located in Anchorage, 

Alaska from the Federal Government to the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) in Anchorage, Alaska. ANTHC assumed responsibility for the provision of the IHS-funded health care services in 1999 under the authority of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA). The federal property described in S. 235, which is used in connection with health and related programs in Anchorage, Alaska by the IHS, was transferred to ANTHC by quitclaim 

deed and recorded in the Anchorage Recording District on June 25, 2013. 

On April 26, 2013, IHS executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with 

ANTHC, which sets forth terms and conditions under which easements will be established so IHS could transfer ownership of the Anchorage property to ANTHC by 

quitclaim deed. S. 235 provides for the conveyance of the Anchorage property from 

the United States to the ANTHC and proposes to replace the quitclaim deed transfer by authorizing the use of a warranty deed. The easements, which will be established under the MOA, must remain intact if a warranty deed is executed. 

The IHS supports this bill because it views the proposed transfer as furthering 

the special partnership that exists with American Indian and Alaska Native tribal 

governments, and, moreover, is in keeping with the Presidential Memorandum on 

Administrative Flexibility as it pertains to tribal governments. It is important to 

emphasize that, as a normal practice, IHS does not transfer properties via the warranty deed mechanism. However, we will support an exception in this case because 

of the ANTHC initiative to expand access to its health care system for IHS beneficiaries from throughout Alaska. This proposal will give the ANTHC flexibility to 

leverage additional resources because ownership of the property under a warranty 

deed will give them unencumbered ownership of the property described in S. 235. 

IHS believes the language, relating to the following issues needs to be clarified 

and/or revised:

5

• Conveyance language should be revised to allow no less than 90 days to convey 

the property to ANTHC;

• Environmental Liability language needs to be clarified so the ANTHC is responsible for any environmental contamination which may have occurred since its 

control of the property began in 1999, or for contamination that may occur or 

arise ‘‘as of, or after, the date of the 2013 conveyance’’; and,

• ’’Reversionary Clause’’ language should be clarified to apply in case of retrocession by ANTHC from their ISDEAA compact.

• Legal Description language needs to be changed to describe accurately the property to be conveyed: ‘‘Tract A–3A, Tudor Centre, according to plat no. 2013–43, 

recorded on June 20, 2013 in Anchorage recording district, Alaska, containing 

2.79 acres more or less’’.

We believe that reasons to use this mechanism in future cases are limited. IHS 

anticipates no problems with the quitclaim deed currently being processed by IHS 

for ANTHC. Traditionally, Alaska Tribal Health Organizations (THOs) have preferred to leave the title of their facilities previously operated by the IHS with the 

Federal Government, and the majority of the health care facilities used by the 

Tribes in the other 35 states are located on tribally owned lands. This warranty 

deed transfer would be the fourth of its kind in Alaska. IHS recently issued three 

warranty deeds authorized by Congress to transfer parcels of land to the Maniilaq 

Association previously transferred through a quitclaim deed. On other numerous occasions properties were transferred to Tribes or Tribal Organizations through quitclaim deeds. 

We think retrocession is unlikely. We can count only four retrocessions since the 

enactment of ISDEAA in 1975. Three were only small program components which 

have been re-assumed by the Tribes. None of these retrocessions was in the Alaska 

Area. 

We look forward to working with you, Madam Chairwoman, on measures to improve the health of the Alaska Native population. Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss 

S. 235. I will be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have. Thank 

you.

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you very much. Thank you for being 

here. 

Mr. Teuber, thank you very much. We look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ANDY TEUBER, CHAIRMAN/PRESIDENT, 

ALASKA NATIVE TRIBAL HEALTH CONSORTIUM 

Mr. TEUBER. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Cantwell 

and Ranking Member Barrasso, other members of the Committee. 

My name is Andy Teuber. I am the Chairman and President of 

the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium. Thank you for the opportunity today to testify in support of S. 235, the Alaska Native 

Tribal Health Consortium Land Transfer Act. 

ANTHC, as it is known, is a statewide tribal health organization 

that serves all 229 federally-recognized tribes and over 143,000 

Alaska Natives across the State of Alaska. We are the largest, most 

comprehensive tribal health organization in the United States. 

Through a self-governance compact, ANTHC provides health services that were previously provided by the Indian Health Service. 

ANTHC jointly operates the Alaska Native Medical Center with 

South Central Foundation. Located in Anchorage, this 150-bed hospital is the statewide tertiary care center for over 143,000 Alaska 

Natives and American Indians who reside in the State. Each year 

we provide over 287,000 outpatient visits, 54,000 emergency department visits, 8,000 inpatient admissions, 1,500 infant deliveries 

and over 10,000 annual surgical procedures. We believe ANMC is 

one of the finest facilities in the Indian health system. 

6

As a level 2 trauma center, ANMC is the highest certified trauma hospital in Alaska. This recognition certifies our ability to provide quality care to people who suffer traumatic injuries 24 hours 

a day, 365 days a year. Today, Alaska Natives are healthier and 

living longer as a result of the care provided at ANMC and by the 

tribal health system. 

However, there is much more work needing to be done. One of 

our main challenges is meeting the increased demand for health 

services of an ever-increasing population of Alaska Natives. The 

population we serve has increased by over 34 percent since ANMC 

first opened, increasing from 105,000 in 1997 to well over 143,000 

today. To meet current and future needs, ANTHC has developed a 

comprehensive campus facilities master plan. We have identified 

an immediate need for increased patient housing to increase the capacity at ANMC. 

As ANMC serves as the referral hospital for tertiary cases for the 

entire Alaska Tribal Health System, many of our patients we serve 

are from villages many hundreds of miles away and outside of Anchorage. We have included Exhibit A that illustrates the span of 

our referral pattern. For these individuals, the biggest challenge in 

accessing specialty services at ANMC is the lack of housing and an 

affordable place to stay while in Anchorage. ANTHC has undertaken extraordinary efforts to accommodate traveling patients as 

best we can with limited resources. However, the cost of providing 

housing to patients and medically necessary escorts under the current system has risen dramatically and will be unsustainable in 

the future. 

In 1999 the cost of providing housing for patients and escorts 

was $600,000. This cost has increased eight-fold today, to $4.8 million. Because we receive only minimal reimbursements for providing patient housing, we expect an estimated net loss of $4.5 million for in fiscal year 2012 for providing this patient housing. This 

cost is borne solely by ANTHC from ANMC operating funds. Our 

current capacity for patient residential housing is 52 rooms at our 

Quyana House, managed by ANMC, and 110 hotel rooms that 

ANMC contracts for at another additional expense. 

In order to improve patient care and contain costs for providing 

housing to patients and their escorts who receive care at ANMC, 

we need to construct this 170-room residential and outpatient guest 

facility. Estimated construction cost of the patient housing facility 

is around $40 million. After completion, the housing facility will 

save ANTHC an estimated $2 million per year. The patient housing facility will be built on the closest open land to ANMC, which 

is located directly across the road, north of ANMC. The housing facility will be connected to ANMC via a sky bridge, maximizing patient care and minimizing transportation expenses. 

On June 25th, the Indian Health Service provided a quitclaim 

deed to ANTHC for the 2.79 acre parcel where the Patient Housing 

Facility will be built. The housing facility will be built using nonFederal funds. Currently there are no buildings on the 2.79 acre 

parcel ANTHC is seeking to obtain warranty deed title to, through 

S. 235, and the land is being used for parking currently. To address 

parking issues that may arise from displacement, ANTHC is also 

7

in the design phase of constructing a parking garage on the 2.79 

acres. 

If enacted, this important legislation would allow ANTHC to successfully continue to fulfill the Federal Government’s trust responsibility by providing for the current and future health care needs 

of Alaska Natives and American Indians. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify today. I am happy to 

answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Teuber follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANDY TEUBER, CHAIRMAN/PRESIDENT, ALASKA NATIVE

TRIBAL HEALTH CONSORTIUM

Good afternoon Chairwoman Cantwell, Ranking Member Barrasso, Senator Murkowski, Senator Begich and other members of the Committee. My name is Andy 

Teuber. I am the Chairman and President of the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC). Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of S. 235-the 

Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium Land Transfer Act. 

ANTHC is a statewide tribal health organization that serves all 229 federally-recognized tribes and over 143,000 Alaska Natives and American Indians in Alaska. 

We are the largest, most comprehensive tribal health organization in the United 

States. Through a Self-Governance Compact, ANTHC provides health services that 

were previously provided by the Indian Health Service. 

ANTHC jointly operates the Alaska Native Medical Center (ANMC) with 

Southcentral Foundation. Located in Anchorage, this 150-bed hospital is the statewide tertiary care center for over 143,000 Alaska Natives and American Indians 

who live in Alaska. Annually, we provide over:

• 287,000 outpatient visits; 

• 54,000 emergency department visits; 

• 8,000 inpatient admissions; 

• 1,500 infant deliveries; and 

• 10,000 surgical procedures.

We believe ANMC is one of the finest facilities in the Indian health system. As 

a Level II Trauma Center, ANMC is the highest certified trauma hospital in Alaska. 

This recognition certifies our ability to provide quality care to people who suffer 

traumatic injuries 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Today, Alaska Natives are 

healthier and living longer as a result of the care provided at ANMC and by the 

Alaska Tribal Health System. 

However, there is much more work to be done. One of our main challenges is 

meeting the increased demand for health services of an ever-increasing population 

of Alaska Natives. The population we serve has increased by over 34 percent since 

ANMC first opened, increasing from about 105,000 in 1997 to over 143,000 today. 

To meet current and future needs ANTHC has developed a comprehensive campus 

facilities master plan. We have identified an immediate need for increased patient 

housing to increase capacity at ANMC. 

As ANMC serves as the referral hospital for tertiary cases for the entire Alaska 

Tribal Health System, many of the patients we serve are from villages many hundreds of miles outside of Anchorage (see Exhibit A, attached). For these individuals, 

the biggest challenge in accessing specialty services at ANMC is the lack of housing 

and an affordable place to stay while in Anchorage. ANTHC has undertaken extraordinary efforts to accommodate traveling patients as best we can with limited 

resources. However, the cost of providing housing to patients and medically necessary escorts under the current system has risen dramatically and will be 

unsustainable in the future. 

In 1999 the cost of providing housing for patients and escorts was $600,000. This 

cost has increased 8-fold, to $4.8 million, in FY 2012. Because we receive only minimal reimbursements for providing patient housing, we expect an estimated net loss 

of $4.5 million for in FY 2012 for providing patient housing. This cost is borne solely 

by ANTHC from ANMC operating funds. Our current capacity for patient residential housing is 52 rooms at our Quyana House, managed by ANMC, and 110 hotel 

rooms that ANMC contracts for at considerable expense. 

In order to improve patient care and contain costs for providing housing to patients (and their escorts) who receive care at ANMC, we need to construct a 170-

room residential and outpatient guest room facility. Estimated construction cost of 

8

the Patient Housing Facility is $40 million currently. After completion, the housing 

facility will save ANTHC an estimated $2 million per year. 

The Patient Housing Facility will be built on the closest open land to ANMC, 

which is located directly across the road, north of ANMC. The housing facility will 

be connected to ANMC via a sky bridge, maximizing patient care and minimizing 

transportation expenses. 

On June 21, 2013 the Indian Health Service provided a quitclaim deed to ANTHC 

for the 2.79 acre parcel where the Patient Housing Facility will be built (see Exhibit 

B, attached). The housing facility will be built using non-federal funds. Currently 

there are no buildings on the 2.79 acre parcel ANTHC is seeking to obtain warranty 

deed title to, through S. 235, and the land is being used for parking. To address 

parking issues that may arise from displacement, ANTHC is also in the design 

phase of constructing a parking garage on the 2.79 acre parcel. 

While the quitclaim deed allows ANTHC to begin construction of the Patient 

Housing Facility, it is still necessary that ANTHC hold an unencumbered title to 

the land on which the Patient Housing Facility will be located on. Having an 

unencumbered title will allow ANTHC to use the Patient Housing Facility as collateral to obtain the financing necessary to achieve our long-term expansion needs. 

This can only be accomplished through federal legislation, therefore the need for S. 

235. 

We respectfully request favorable consideration of S. 235, which, if passed, would 

greatly improve the accessibility of much needed health services for Alaska Natives 

and American Indians throughout Alaska, whose health care status, despite years 

of progress, continues to lag far behind other populations in Alaska and the rest of 

the United States. 

If enacted this important legislation would allow ANTHC to successfully continue 

to fulfill the Federal Government’s trust responsibility by providing for the current 

and future health care needs of Alaska Natives and American Indians throughout 

Alaska. 

Attachments


731a1.eps
9

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Harris? 

STATEMENT OF SARAH HARRIS, CHIEF OF STAFF TO

ASSISTANT SECRETARY—INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Ms. HARRIS. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice Chairman Barrasso, members of the Committee. 

My name is Sarah Harris, and I am a member of the Mohegan 

Tribe from Connecticut. I am here today in my capacity as the 

Chief of Staff to Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Kevin 

Washburn. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department’s statement on S. 920, the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa 

Non-Intercourse Act of 2013. The Department supports S. 920. The 

Department is aware the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and Carlton County in Minnesota want to finalize an agreement for an exchange of land. We are supportive of their efforts to 

work together to resolve these important land issues within their 

communities. 

Under the agreement, the Band would exchange 1,451 acres of 

off-reservation land that it owns in fee simple for 3,200 acres of onreservation land that is administered by Carlton County. It is our 

understanding that the two parcels are of equivalent value. It is 

important to note that this proposed land exchange does not inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Dec 17, 2013 Jkt 085897 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\85897.TXT JACK

731a2.eps
10

volve any lands held in trust by the Department or the United 

States for the benefit of the band. 

Both the band and the county have requested this legislation because they believe that the land exchange is prohibited unless authorized by Congress. Both cite Federal Law 25 U.S.C. Section 177, 

which prohibits any purchase, grant, lease or other conveyance of 

lands or any title or claim thereto from any Indian nation or tribe 

of Indians unless authorized by Congress. Therefore, the State of 

Minnesota is of the opinion that it cannot give final approval to the 

land exchange without an act of Congress authorizing the Band to 

convey its title to this land. 

S. 920 is not limited to this specific land exchange. Instead, the 

bill provides more broad authority for the Band to lease, sell, convey, warrant or transfer all or any portion of any interest in its 

real property not held in trust by the United States for the benefit 

of the Band. Thus, S. 920 would allow the Band to do with its 

lands what it deems fit, as long as that land is not held in trust 

by the United States. Therefore, the Department supports S. 920. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you here today. 

I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Harris follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SARAH HARRIS, CHIEF OF STAFF TO ASSISTANT

SECRETARY—INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Good afternoon, Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and members of 

the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide a statement on behalf of 

the Department of the Interior (Department) on S. 920, the Fond du Lac Band of 

Lake Superior Chippewa Non-Intercourse Act of 2013. The Department supports S. 

920. 

The Department is aware that the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa 

(Band) and Carlton County (County) in Minnesota propose to implement an agreement that they have for an exchange of land. The land exchange involves 1,451 

acres of land located outside the Fond du Lac Reservation, which are owned in fee 

simple by the Band. These lands would be exchanged for tax-forfeited lands of 

equivalent value (approximately 3,200 acres) that are administered by Carlton 

County, the title to which is held by the State of Minnesota, and which are located 

within the Fond du Lac Reservation. This proposed land exchange does not involve 

any lands held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Band. 

However, both the Band and the County are of the opinion that this land exchange is prohibited unless authorized by Congress. The Band and County cite federal law, 25 U.S.C. § 177, which prohibits any ‘‘purchase, grant, lease, or other conveyance of lands, or of any title or claim thereto, from any Indian nation or tribe 

of Indians’’ unless authorized by Congress, and therefore the State of Minnesota is 

of the opinion that they cannot give final approval to the land exchange without an 

Act of Congress authorizing the Band to convey its title to this land. 

S. 920 is not limited to this specific land exchange, but instead is more broad and 

would allow the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa in the State of Minnesota (Band) to lease, sell, convey, warrant, or transfer all or any portion of the 

interest in any real property not held in trust status by the United States for the 

benefit of the Band. The legislation also clearly states that S. 920 does not authorize 

the Band to lease, sell, convey, warrant, or otherwise transfer all or any portion of 

any interest in any real property that is held in trust by the United States for the 

benefit of the Band. Thus, S. 920 would allow the Band to do with those lands not 

held in trust status, likely all lands held in fee simple by the Band, as the Band 

deems fit. Therefore the Department supports S. 920. 

Madam Chairwoman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am happy to answer any questions you may 

have.

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. Ms. Henriquez, thank you for 

being here. 

11

STATEMENT OF HON. SANDRA HENRIQUEZ, ASSISTANT

SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice 

Chairman Barrasso and members of the Committee. Thank you for 

inviting me to testify today on S. 1352, a bill to reauthorize the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 

1996, otherwise known as NAHASDA. 

My name is Sandra Henriquez, and I am the Assistant Secretary 

for Public and Indian Housing at HUD. PIH is responsible for the 

management, operation and oversight of HUD’s American Indian, 

Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian housing programs. HUD is 

very pleased that the reauthorization of NAHASDA is a priority for 

this Committee. We strongly support reauthorization of 

NAHASDA, because this law is essential to creating sustainable 

tribal communities. 

NAHASDA provides a successful approach guided by the principles of self-determination, consultation and self-governance, to delivering decent and affordable Indian housing and developing tribal 

economies. The Indian Housing Block Grant, the largest program 

under NAHASDA, has infused almost $10 billion in to Indian housing and community development since its inception about 16 years 

ago. Over the life of the program, IHBG recipients have built or acquired more than 35,000 affordable housing units in Indian Country and substantially rehabbed more than 66,000. Recipients currently maintain almost 51,000 HUD units that were funded before 

NAHASDA was enacted. 

HUD is currently analyzing and reviewing S. 1352, and would 

like the opportunity to work with the Committee and staff to provide recommendations on some of the existing provisions as well as 

offer insight on ways to further improve NAHASDA. We are particularly pleased to see an effort on the part of the Committee bill 

to address the needs of homeless veterans on reservations. 

For the past year, HUD’s Office of Native American Programs 

has collaborated with the Veterans Administration in an effort to 

find ways that existing Federal programs can be used to reduce the 

number of homeless vets living on reservations. We are happy to 

assist with further development of this concept, and explore ways 

in which HUD VASH can work in Indian Country without creating 

a separate program or subjecting tribal recipients to burdensome 

administrative requirements. 

HUD also understands the desire of this Committee and IHBG 

recipients to streamline environmental reporting requirements. 

Staff is working diligently to develop an approach to streamline the 

requirements in a way that can be supported by all the agencies 

involved in Indian housing projects. We are currently exploring the 

feasibility of creating one standard for environmental reporting requirements that would meet the needs of these agencies. HUD has 

proposed that the recently created White House Council on Native 

American Affairs consider working on this issue. 

Finally, HUD is encouraged to see the Committee bill supporting 

the reauthorization of the Native Hawaiian Homeownership Act. 

These programs are vital to providing housing to more than 26,000 

12

Native Hawaiian families currently on the waiting list for decent, 

safe and affordable housing. 

In addition to these important initiatives contained in S. 1352, 

HUD requests that the Committee consider including language to 

support the following principles; clarification of existing statutory 

language to preserve the intent of NAHASDA, allocate more IHGB 

funding according to need and ensure that homes are conveyed to 

families as intended; to authorize the collection of data on sustainable construction practices, energy efficiency, construction costs 

and the level of assistance provided to elders and veterans from 

IHBG recipients; to require non-dwelling structures funded by 

NAHASDA to also be covered by adequate insurance, like housing 

units are currently required to be covered under the statute, as 

they represent a significant investment of limited funding. Also, we 

are looking for the modification of hearing requirements, to allow 

for the commencement but not completion of a hearing with 60 

days of instituting an enforcement action. 

HUD has concerns with some of the amendments proposed in S. 

1352. The change to Section 101 regarding program income would 

further loosen already very flexible requirements regarding the use 

and tracking of income generated from IHBG units. Under the proposed amendment, income generated on the sale proceeds would 

not be required to be spent on housing or housing-related activities. 

Additionally, we are not able to support the proposed amendment 

to Section 201, because we want to preserve the affordability of 

housing units when NAHASDA funds are invested. We want to 

prevent NAHASDA units from being flipped to non-low income or 

even non-Indian families. 

Finally, we understand that there are concerns regarding Indian 

tribes requesting approval to exceed total development costs, or 

TDC, and the desire to have some flexibility when sustainability 

and housing practices are used in housing consruction. We wholeheartedly support sustainability concepts and recipients are able to 

use the statutory requirement because it was developed as it is in 

response to an IG investigation regarding the construction of large 

homes in the northwest using NAHASDA funds. 

I would say HUD supports sustainable practices. We are happy 

to provide suggestions and assistance with drafting of an amendment that allows for variances for sustainable construction, TDC, 

which also preserves the underlying integrity of the policy which 

is to prevent the investment of IHBG funds in a few high cost 

homes, instead of dedicating the funds to producing more affordable housing units. 

We look forward to working with the Committee and the Committee staff to provide technical assistance and to discuss ways to 

refine S. 1352 to support our mutual goal: meeting the housing 

needs of American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian 

families, and continuing to create sustainable tribal communities. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Henriquez follows:]

13

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SANDRA HENRIQUEZ, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR

PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT

Good Afternoon Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and Members of 

the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify on S 1352, a bill to reauthorize 

the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 

(NAHASDA.) 

My name is Sandra Henriquez and I am the Assistant Secretary for Public and 

Indian Housing (PIH) at HUD. PIH is responsible for the management, operation, 

and oversight of HUD’s American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian 

housing programs. 

NAHASDA provides a successful approach, guided by the principles of self-determination and self-governance, to providing decent and affordable Indian housing 

and developing tribal economies. The Indian Housing Block Grant, the largest program under NAHASDA, has infused more than $9.9 billion into Indian housing and 

community development since its inception 16 years ago. 

Over the life of the program IHBG recipients have built or acquired more than 

35,000 affordable housing units in Indian Country, and substantially rehabbed more 

than 66,000. IHBG recipients also currently maintain almost 51,000 ‘‘HUD units’’ 

that were funded before NAHASDA was enacted. 

HUD is very pleased that the reauthorization of NAHASDA is a priority for this 

Committee. HUD strongly supports the reauthorization of NAHASDA because the 

law is essential to building sustainable tribal communities. 

We are currently analyzing and reviewing S. 1352, and would like the opportunity 

to work with the Committee and staff to provide recommendations on some of the 

existing provisions, as well as offer insight on ways to further improve NAHASDA. 

Today, I would like to share with you our initial views on the draft bill. First I 

will comment on the provisions included in the bill and then discuss some principles 

HUD would like to see reflected in the bill. 

HUD is particularly pleased to see an effort on the part of the Committee bill to 

address the needs of homeless veterans on reservations. For the past year, PIH has 

collaborated with the Department of Veterans Affairs in an effort to a find way to 

use the HUD VASH program to reduce the number of homeless veterans living on 

reservations. We look forward to working with the Committee to further tailor the 

existing HUD VASH program to work in Indian Country. 

HUD also understands the desire of this Committee and IHBG recipients to 

streamline environmental reporting requirements. We appreciate the Committees 

attempt to address this vexing issue but feel the issue needs even further study. 

HUD ONAP staff has been working diligently to develop an approach to streamline 

the requirements in a way that can be supported by all the agencies involved in 

Indian housing projects. We are currently exploring the feasibility of creating one 

standard for environmental reporting requirements that would meet the needs of 

these agencies. HUD will also be proposing that the recently created White House 

Council on Native American Affairs consider working on this issue. 

And finally, HUD is encouraged to see the Committee bill supporting the reauthorization of the Native Hawaiian Homeownership Act. This program is vital to 

providing housing to the 26,546 Native Hawaiian families currently on the waiting 

list for decent, safe and affordable housing. 

While we are still reviewing the bill in its entirety, I would like to share some 

initial reactions to proposed amendments to two sections of NAHASDA included in 

S 1352. First, proposed amendments to Section 104 would further loosen already 

flexible requirements regarding the use and tracking of program income. We need 

to carefully explore the implications of this change on funding for affordable housing 

and Federal oversight. Additionally, we need to consider the possible impacts of proposed amendments to Section 205 on the long-term preservation of affordable 

NAHASDA units. 

Finally, we understand there are concerns from Indian tribes requesting approval 

to exceed total development costs (TDC), and the desire to have additional flexibility 

when projects may exceed TDC. Under current law, IHBG recipients are able to exceed TDC by 10 percent without HUD approval. For example, in the Northwest 

were the TDC for a three bedroom home is around $ 350,000, the current statute 

allows for recipients to exceed this amount by $35,000 without HUD approval bringing the TDC up to $385,000. If recipients wish to exceed the 10 percent cap, under 

the current regulations they may seek a variance from HUD. The proposed amendment would provide recipients the authority to exceed TDCs up to 20 percent over 

the TDC limit without prior HUD approval. So if the TDC is $350,000 then it would 

allow IHBG recipients to exceed the cap by $70,000 or up to $420,000 without prior 

14

HUD approval. It is our understanding that this language is being requested to 

allow for variances caused by the use of sustainable green building practices. HUD 

supports sustainable practices. However, we need to carefully balance this goal with 

the equally important goal of preventing the investment of IHBG funds into a few 

high costs homes instead of dedicating the funds to producing more affordable housing units. 

HUD would also like to work with the Committee on changes to NAHASDA to 

reflect the following principles:

• Enrich the type of data reported by recipients, including data on energy efficiency, construction costs, and level of assistance provided to elders and veterans.

• Strengthen insurance requirements to better protect NAHASDA investments 

and improve retention of records for monitoring purposes.

• Preserve the intent of NAHASDA by ensuring that homes are conveyed to families as intended.

• Protect NAHASDA funds in emergency situation.

HUD also shares Congress’s concern about the concentration of unexpended IHBG 

funds. In addition to providing intense technical assistance to grantees to help build 

their capacity to expend funds, we will work with the Committee on possible statutory amendments that would provide HUD additional tools to ensure the timely expenditure of IHBG funds by all grantees. 

We look forward to working with the Committee and staff to refine S 1352 to support the goal we share of meeting the housing needs of American Indian and Alaska 

Native families, and playing an integral part in building sustainable Indian communities. Thank you.

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you, Assistant Secretary Henriquez. 

Thank you for being here. 

President Keel, thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFFERSON KEEL, PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS 

Mr. KEEL. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Senators, 

members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear 

before you on behalf of the National Congress of American Indians, 

this opportunity to testify about our views on S. 1352, the Native 

American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2013. It is certainly an important bill for us. 

The enactment of the Native American Housing Assistance and 

Self-Determination Act in 1996 was rightly seen as a significant 

event in the history of Indian housing, because NAHASDA consolidated a number of existing programs into the Indian Housing Block 

Grant. As a tribal leader, I have seen what self-determination has 

achieved for my tribe, and other tribes, as we address our housing 

and infrastructure needs in a way that best meets the needs of our 

citizens. 

NAHASDA has enabled us to design and implement innovative 

housing programs and to leverage those dollars with tribal and private resources. NCAI has worked with tribal governments and the 

National American Indian Housing Council to find solutions that 

strengthen and improve housing infrastructure in Indian Country. 

NCAI supports Section 101 regarding the treatment of program 

income and labor standards. This provision strengthens tribal selfdetermination and enables tribes to respond most effectively to 

local economic conditions by clarifying language that allows tribes 

to apply their own adopted prevailing wages instead of macro 

wages and to maximize employment opportunities for their tribal 

members when implementing NAHASDA projects. 

15

NCAI strongly supports the amendments contained in Section 

102 as it promises to expedite housing projects, improve efficiencies 

and eliminate wasteful duplicative environmental reviews. One of 

the innovations of NAHASDA was to allow tribes to exercise environmental review requirements that would otherwise be carried 

out by HUD. Tribes have utilized these provisions to build their capacity and improve the efficiency of their housing programs. 

However, in many housing projects in Indian Country involving 

funding and/or review by various Federal agencies, there are additional overlapping and redundant environmental review requirements imposed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Health 

Service and/or the Department of Agriculture. The resulting administrative and legal costs in doing so take funds away from constructing houses and cause unnecessary delays for critical housing 

projects. This section will save time for the tribes developing housing projects and will save both Federal and tribal resources. It is 

a critical change to ensure efficient development of tribal housing 

projects. 

Section 401, demonstration of rental assistance for homeless or 

at-risk Indian veterans, I have to say that as a veteran myself, it 

is absolutely disgraceful, in my opinion, that in this great Country 

we have to use homeless and veterans in the same sentence. NCAI 

expressed initial concern with this demonstration that the resources were carved out from the overall NAHASDA program. 

After further discussion with the staff of the Committee, we understand this program will use funds from HUD VASH and will complement the Senate appropriation language regarding the HUD 

VASH setaside. NCAI looks forward to working with this Committee on this important issue. I applaud the intent of Section 401 

to ensure tribes have access to funding for rental assistance for 

these homeless or at-risk Native veterans. 

NCAI strongly supports the amendments contained in Section 

404. This provision is a top priority of NCAI’s tribal tax working 

group, and is supported by NCAI and our partners. 

In addition to our position on the provisions outlined above, 

NCAI’s written testimony includes specific recommendations that 

the Committee consider the following areas of emphasis that will 

ensure success of NAHASDA. We urge the Committee to ensure 

that the NAHASDA reauthorization considers strategies to ensure 

the Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee program meets its 

intended focus of expanding home ownership on tribal trust lands, 

expands lending and housing developments through the HEARTH 

Act, ensure that integrated planning is an eligible activity under 

NAHASDA, and ensure ongoing data collection and analysis that 

supports tribal housing. 

In conclusion, I would like to thank this Committee for the opportunity to appear before you. As the President of NCAI, I can assure you that this is one of the most important bills that we will 

be working on. We look forward to working with you. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Keel follows:]

16

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JEFFERSON KEEL, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CONGRESS

OF AMERICAN INDIANS

On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), thank you for 

the opportunity to provide testimony about our views on S.1352, The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2013. NCAI 

looks forward to working with the Committee to ensure recommendations coming 

out of the Committee’s hearings process take into account the housing needs of Indian Country. 

The 1996 enactment of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) was rightly seen as a significant event in the history of 

Indian housing. NAHASDA consolidated a number of existing programs into the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG). This system drew lessons from the success of 

other self-determination and self-governance programs. These programs in diverse 

areas—from health to natural resources to economic development—had demonstrated the positive impact of empowering tribes to more effectively develop, implement, and manage strategies to meet the specific needs of their community. The 

history of NAHASDA has shown the positive impact of empowering tribes to develop 

strategies that meet the needs of their communities. 

NAHASDA has transformed how Indian housing programs recognize tribes’ authority to make their own business decisions and this 2013 reauthorization addresses the majority of the housing programs that serve Indian Country. Tribes have 

made strides in addressing housing and infrastructure conditions in Indian Country 

through developing and managing their own programs and in many cases leveraging 

NAHASDA dollars with tribal dollars. This flexibility is even more important given 

the changed economic environment since 1996, and the various policy developments 

that hold significant potential to enhance housing development in Indian Country. 

NCAI has worked with tribal governments and the National American Indian Housing Council to find solutions that strengthen and improve housing infrastructure in 

Indian Country. 

NCAI’s comments regarding S. 1352, The Native American Housing Assistance 

and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2013 are outlined below. The first 

section addresses provisions in the bill itself, the second section identifies additional 

areas of opportunity for the Committee’s consideration. 

Section I: Analysis of S. 1352

Title I—Block Grants and Grant Requirements 

• Section 101. Treatment of Program Income and Labor Standards

NCAI supports this important provision as it strengthens tribal self-determination 

and enables tribes to respond most effectively to local economic conditions. 

This language provides clarification that NAHASDA recipients satisfy federal 

labor requirements when applying tribal adopted prevailing wage rates to fund 

NAHASDA projects. The use of prevailing wages instead of macro-wages is a critical 

distinction to ensure tribes have the flexibility to maximize job creation at the local 

level. For example, a Montana tribe who received American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding applied their tribal adopted prevailing wages so they could maximize employment for tribal members. The tribe was able to offer numerous quality 

jobs for tribal members—in a reservation facing significant challenges with unemployment—paying between $16 to $18 per hour. Average wages in the nearest city 

at that time (macro wages) stood between $20 to $22 per hour. If the tribe was compelled to apply macro wage standards the result would have been less jobs to address the unemployment crisis in that community. This provision enhances 

NAHASDA’s purpose to strengthen tribal self-determination by acknowledging 

tribes are best positioned to develop strategies to meet the needs of their communities.

• Section 102. Environmental review

NCAI strongly supports the amendments contained in Section 102 as it promises 

to expedite housing projects, improve efficiencies, and eliminate wasteful duplicative 

environmental reviews. 

One of the innovations of NAHASDA was to allow tribes to exercise environmental review requirements that would otherwise be carried out by HUD. For those 

tribes that have the capacity in-house to conduct environmental review, it is both 

an exercise of the tribe’s sovereignty and administratively more efficient to have 

such reviews carried out by the tribe. Under the NAHASDA regulations, where a 

tribe does assume environmental review responsibilities, it must do so in accordance 

with the applicable HUD environmental review regulations at 24 CFR parts 50 and 

17

58. Many tribes and TDHEs have built their capacity to carry out environmental 

reviews consistent with the HUD-mandated process. 

However, because many housing projects in Indian Country involving funding 

and/or review by various federal agencies, in a number of cases there are additional, 

overlapping, and redundant environmental review requirements imposed by federal 

agencies including the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Health Service (IHS), and/

or Department of Agriculture (USDA). The Bureau of Indian Affairs in exercising 

their authority to review and approve residential leases on trust lands may require 

environmental review. Further, when tribes or TDHEs leverage their NAHASDA 

funds by using grant funds from other federal agencies (such as the IHS or USDA—

Rural Development), that agency’s environmental review requirements will also 

apply. Thus, tribes and TDHEs in such circumstances will be required to undertake 

three different environmental reviews—all of which are intended to meet the same 

federal statutory requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act—because each federal agency has its own guidelines and procedures. The resulting administrative and legal costs in doing so take funds away from constructing houses 

and causes unnecessarily delays for critical housing projects. This section will save 

time for the tribes developing housing projects and will save both federal and tribal 

resources. It is a critical change to ensure efficient development of tribal housing 

projects. 

Title IV—Other Housing Assistance for Native Americans

• Section 401. Demonstration of rental assistance for homeless or at-risk Indian 

Veterans

NCAI expressed initial concern with this demonstration if the resources were 

carved out from the overall NAHASDA program. After further discussion with the 

staff of the Committee, we understand this program will use funds from HUD–

VASH and will complement the Senate Appropriations language regarding the 

HUD–VASH set-aside. While NCAI understands the intent of Section 401 to include 

Native veterans in Indian housing programs, NAHASDA already enables tribes and 

tribal housing authorities to provide housing services to Native American veterans 

including rental and homeownership services. 

NCAI sees significant potential in the demonstration and hopes that HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program (HUD–VASH) will create a program to 

address the problem of veteran homelessness who live on tribal lands and are homeless or at-risk of homelessness. NCAI supports this demonstration to address homelessness among Native American veterans equipping HUD, VA, and HUD Office 

Veterans Affairs to address this issue by using funding from HUD-Veterans Affairs 

Supportive Housing Program, a program that has already demonstrated success in 

decreasing veterans’ homelessness by 17 percent since 2009.

• Section 404. Preference for projects in Indian areas

NCAI strongly supports the amendments contained in section 404. This provision 

is a top priority of NCAI’s tribal tax working group and is supported by NCAI and 

our partners. The amendments to the Low Income Housing Credit ensure access to 

a critical leveraging tool to develop housing on tribal lands. Some tribes have faced 

barriers in accessing the tax credit due to misunderstanding by state governments 

in allocating their credits. NCAI fully supports this provision because it appropriately inserts projects located in ‘‘Indian areas,’’ as defined in Section 4 of 

NAHASDA, within the selected projects given preference under a ‘‘qualified allocation plan.’’

Section II: Ensuring the Success of NAHASDA 

In addition to our position on the provisions outlined above, NCAI urges the Committee to consider the following areas of emphasis that will ensure the success of 

NAHASDA. Emphasis on these areas will ensure that NAHASDA reaches its full 

potential to advance economic opportunity and strengthen self-determination.

• Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program

Section 184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 began to 

address one of the fundamental challenges faced by Indian housing—the lack of private mortgage financing. The program provided an assured federal payment of 100 

percent of an outstanding mortgage balance if a borrower defaulted on his/her loan. 

The program authorizes the BIA and HUD to approve borrowers and land leases 

in order to guarantee loans from private lenders to Native American families, tribes, 

and housing authorities. The home and the leasehold interest in the home site are 

mortgaged and are subject to liquidation in case of foreclosure, although eligible 

tribal members, the tribe, or the relevant Indian Housing Authority are first offered 

a chance to assume the leasehold interest and continue payments. In order to parVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Dec 17, 2013 Jkt 085897 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\85897.TXT JACK
18

ticipate in HUD mortgage guarantee programs, HUD must review the tribe’s legal 

ordinances which include: leasing, mortgage lending, eviction and foreclosure as well 

as the code enforcement process through the tribal courts system or another court 

of competent jurisdiction (designated by the tribe). 

Using Section 184, Indian tribes or tribal members can purchase an existing 

home; obtain single-close construction loans for stick-built or manufactured homes 

on a permanent foundation; obtain rehabilitation loans; or obtain both a purchase 

and rehabilitation loan. In 2004, HUD expanded the Section 184 program to allow 

tribes to petition the agency for the right to extend their service area or ‘‘Indian 

Area’’ to include Native-owned homes off-reservation. These off-reservation units 

exist in areas where a particular tribe traditionally resided or where significant 

members now live. As a result, certain tribes can now apply the Section 184 program to all of their members residing within a particular state instead of just within 

their reservation’s borders. 

The Section 184 program is one of the most successful homeownership programs 

for Indian Country and is a model for other homeownership programs. Since the 

program was established, there have been almost 22,000 Section 184 transactions 

totaling $3.5 billion in loans that serve Native borrowers. According to the most recent figures from HUD, these loans include 2,656 transactions on tribal trust lands 

totaling $290 million; 526 transactions on allotted land totaling $73.6 million; and 

18,760 transactions on fee simple land totaling $3.15 billion. Based on these numbers, tribal trust and allotted land transactions make up only 14.5 percent of Section 184 transactions. NCAI continues to be concerned that a significant proportion 

of Section 184 loans are not on tribal trust or individual trust lands, contrary to 

the original intent of Section 184 to increase homeownership on tribal lands. NCAI 

urges the Committee to consider the following challenges to increasing Section 184 

loans on tribal trust lands:

1. Financial Investors and Institution: Especially given the tightening of mortgage markets and challenges faced by the financial sector in general since the 

financial crisis, it is imperative that Congress address the limited access to capital on tribal lands. The most recent available data note that 86 percent of Native communities lack access to a single financial institution. This absence presents significant challenges to attracting investors and securing home mortgages in Indian Country. This challenge has long-term implications for the overall economic health of tribes given that the final report of the President’s Council on Financial Capability noted that the lack of well designed and accessible 

financial products and services challenges the capacity to enhance financial capabilities.

2. Financial Capabilities: NCAI strongly advocates for tribes to enact comprehensive programs and policies that promote increased financial capability for 

tribes and for Native peoples—and for Congress to assure that the resources to 

do this are included in the NAHASDA reauthorization. Increased financial capability is a foundation for building permanent assets to strengthen their communities’ economies. Housing programs offer a critical opportunity to include 

programs and policies that directly address individual’s ability to become financially literate and make more informed financial decisions for themselves and 

their families.

3. Leasing Regulations: As outlined below, the July 2012 passage of the Helping 

Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership (HEARTH) Act presents a critical opportunity for HUD to expand housing development utilizing 

expedited leasing processes. This effort will require close coordination with the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs and consultation with tribes to ensure effective implementation. NCAI believes that streamlined leasing will increase Section 184 

loans on reservation, and enable potential tribal homeowners to successfully 

meet requirements used by financial lenders to process and complete home 

mortgage loan applications.

• Expanding Lending and Housing Development through the HEARTH ACT

The HEARTH Act presents the opportunity for tribes to lease restricted lands for 

residential housing, and will spur homeownership on tribal lands for middle class 

tribal communities. The new law is focused on Indian housing, and authorizes surface leasing of tribal lands without approval from the Secretary of the Interior. Instead, tribal leases can be approved by the tribe under tribal leasing regulations. 

The new law will enable tribes to move more quickly on leasing and economic development, while maintaining the Secretary’s trust responsibility to oversee trust 

lands. The BIA has already approved several tribal leasing codes, but much more 

19

work is needed to implement the law and ensure that all tribes are able to take 

advantage of its opportunities. 

First, tribal leasing codes under the HEARTH Act must be developed and made 

consistent with the BIA’s recently updated leasing regulations, 25 C.F.R. 162. The 

BIA has also published a National Policy Memorandum containing a list of criteria 

that should be considered. Key requirements include leasing code development and 

an environmental review process. Many tribes will need technical assistance and 

staffing not only in developing codes, but also in the review and approval processes. 

As the NAHASDA legislation moves forward, we would encourage the Committee 

to authorize the use of NAHASDA funds for this purpose.

• Ensure integrated planning is an eligible activity under NAHASDA

Tribes may already use NAHASDA funds for the basics of planning for housing, 

including related infrastructure like water, power and sewage. However, NCAI encourages the Committee to make more planning resources available to integrate 

housing planning with all other planning for economic development and jobs, education, transportation, agriculture and food, and the development of communities 

with health active lifestyles. 

In Indian Country, there is a growing emphasis on planning for economic development and jobs and recognition of the importance of business agglomeration. Industries tend to cluster in certain regions, and it is important for tribes to plan and 

build businesses and jobs that complement their existing strengths. 

Tribal industries tend to cluster in certain areas such as:

• Gaming/Hotel/Recreation/Entertainment 

• Agriculture, Oil & Gas, Timber 

• Commercial Real Estate 

• Government Contracting—638 and 8(a) 

• Retail—Indian owned and taxed businesses 

• Housing 

• Roads 

• Health Care 

• Education 

• Law Enforcement 

• Native Arts & Crafts

All of these industries create jobs and create a demand for local housing. By the 

same token, there is a need for job creation for the Native people who live in Indian 

housing. Greater integration of housing and economic development planning is needed. 

In addition, as tribal communities grow, it is essential to look at economic and 

environmental realities in order to make critical decisions about our future. That 

means tribal planning must address issues such as climate change, peak oil and 

food insecurity. Food and energy consume huge portions of tribal economies and 

must be considered in relation to tribal self-determination. The new millennium is 

a time when we are facing the joint challenges of an industrial food system and a 

centralized energy system, both based on fossil fuels, and both of which are damaging the health of our peoples and the Earth at an alarming rate. Tribal communities have long supplied the raw materials for nuclear and coal plants, huge dam 

projects, and oil and gas development. These resources have been exploited to power 

far-off cities and towns, while many tribes remain deficient in sources of heat or 

electricity. 

Tribal communities also laid the groundwork for agriculture on this continent. Yet 

today, tribes produce less and less of their own food and instead rely upon imported 

foods. This is not a sustainable way to ensure the stability of our tribal communities, our environments and our cultures. NAHASDA should support more planning for the linkages of housing, jobs and lifestyles and support tribal efforts to create sustainable energy and food economies for this millennium and for the generations yet to come. Planning supports the creation of local economies, using the resources available to each Indigenous community.

• Ensure ongoing data collection and analysis that supports tribal housing

As the Committee is well aware, tribes and tribal housing entities face significant 

challenges in accessing current and reliable data to develop the most effective housing strategies to meet the needs of their people. This challenge is certainly partially 

the responsibility of HUD—the most recent Native American Housing Needs Study 

was completed in 1999—but the problem also extends to other agencies. The three 

most prominent examples are:

20

1. the American Community Survey poses significant data quality challenges at 

the local level with the concerns identified by rural and remote communities 

being even greater in Indian Country;

2. the 2001 Native American Lending Study, conducted by the Department of 

the Treasury’s CDFI Fund, provides critical data about access to capital and 

is yet to be updated, 12 years since its publication; and,

3. the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) essentially excludes data from Indian 

reservations in the monthly labor force reports, and there is a wide discrepancy between DOI labor force reports and those presented by BLS.

NCAI urges the Committee to explicitly include regular data collection and analysis in the 2013 NAHASDA reauthorization. As noted above, there are challenges 

of timely data collection, but there are also some challenges that could be addressed 

simply through more effective interagency coordination. It is also clear that there 

are several data reports required by HUD that are not analyzed or provided to 

tribes to assist in developing the best housing strategies. 

One solution that NCAI has proposed to address this challenge would be to provide a clearinghouse to provide tribes and tribal housing entities with access to pertinent data collected by the Federal Government. As the President has noted in his 

‘‘open government’’ strategies, access to data can enable more effective policy development. Similar to the information collected and provided through the Recovery.gov

clearinghouse, HUD could partner with other agencies to provide tribes and tribal 

housing entities with access to data that can support effective policy making. This 

initiative could also map existing data requirements and ensure data reports that 

are required of tribes to ensure the requirements are useful to tribes and the Federal Government in developing housing policies. 

Conclusion 

NCAI thanks the Committee for its commitment to the important goals of tribal 

self-determination through flexible and effective housing policy. We look forward to 

working with the Committee throughout the reauthorization of NAHASDA to ensure the reauthorization takes the steps necessary to enable tribes to improve the 

housing condition for their tribal communities and effectively respond to the 

changed economic environment.

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you, President Keel. Thank you for 

your testimony. 

Before I go to questions by numbers, I wanted to point out on 

our agenda we were going to hear from the Chairwoman of the 

Fond du Lac Tribe, who is unable to make it here today, a last 

minute emergency situation. So I was wondering if Senator 

Franken wanted to make a statement now on behalf of that bill. 

STATEMENT OF HON. AL FRANKEN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator FRANKEN. Sure. I think Ms. Harris spoke to it very well, 

so maybe I can speak to it when it gets to my turn to ask questions. I would like to thank Ms. Harris. Chairwoman Diver couldn’t 

make it today, and it is too bad, because she is wonderful. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Good. Thank you. 

Well, let’s turn to questions, then, and President Keel, you mentioned some things aside from S. 1352 that you think we should be 

doing. First of all, thank you for your service to our Country. I 

think you articulated with passion this issue as it relates to our 

veterans. 

Are there other things you think we need to do? Because the 

hearing that this Committee had on the housing issue, I can say, 

just about everybody who was here expressed some level of frustration at the state of housing in Indian Country. 

Mr. KEEL. I think you have heard from others previously that 

housing, safe, affordable housing in Indian Country is in dire need. 

21

You have heard that there are over 200,000 units that are needed 

right now. Tribes have been able to develop programs to best suit 

their needs in Indian Country or in their own communities. But oftentimes there are so many regulations that are imposed that it becomes very discouraging and time, well, we just run out of time. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. What about that, Assistant Secretary 

Henriquez, this issue of, for example, the major Federal partners 

program and streamlining that? More efforts to allow housing to 

happen more quickly? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. I do believe that I would agree with the Chairman. I believe that what we need to do across Federal Government 

is really look to see what all of our programs do and where the 

gaps are and then figure out, like we were suggesting in environmental, to streamline so that we can, across the Federal Government, accept each other’s reports or decide that there is one report 

we will all accept, so that we can streamline both for ourselves, but 

more importantly, for our partners in Indian Country who want to 

make sure that the resources go as far as possible. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. What about waiver requests? We heard even 

at our hearing that waiver requests were slowed down, not a very 

timely response. 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. From our experience at HUD, for example, on 

the total development cost, in the past three years we have had 

three waivers to exceed the 10 percent. We have approved those 

three. We have not been aware that they have held up any of the 

construction-related opportunities that they were meant to remedy. 

So we do them on a case by case basis. But we understand timeliness. We understand in some places in Indian Country it is more 

costly, you lose a construction season and so on. So if there are specifics, we would like to hear what those are, but we have not seen 

them yet come across our desks. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Okay. We will be glad to get some of those 

specifics for you. 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. Thank you. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Ms. Harris, you mentioned your support of 

the Senate Bill 920, and obviously, if we pass this legislation, how 

long will it take for us to actually see the land transfer? Is this 

something that can be timely done? Because obviously this negotiation has been going on for a long time. So obviously, the ease of 

passage of this legislation, we would assume that that land into 

trust would be done in a reasonable time frame. Do you have any 

comments on that? 

Ms. HARRIS. Certainly. It is difficult to predict exactly how long 

it would take to put the land into trust. But if and when the tribe 

does submit a fee to trust application, the Department would certainly work expeditiously to take the land in trust for the tribe as 

we do with all fee to trust applications. Acquiring land in trust for 

Indian tribes is our mission and it has been a priority. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. So on something like this, when an agreement 

has been reached, are we talking a year or years, less than five 

years? 

Ms. HARRIS. I can’t predict how long it would take. It really just 

depends on the application. There are a number of criteria that we 

22

consider under our regulations. We would work expeditiously to 

work through those criteria. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. But one of the reasons why we are passing 

this legislation is obviously to clear up some of the issues that 

might have to be sorted out. 

Ms. HARRIS. I understand. I am happy to speak with the folks 

at the Bureau of Indian Affairs and get back to you. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. That would be great. We would love a general 

time frame. The Committee is trying to understand, on a lot of different issues, what the process and time frame is so that we have 

a clear understanding. 

Mr. MCSWAIN. obviously the Consortium, how much will the Consortium save in outside contracts when the residential facility is 

built? 

Mr. MCSWAIN. That is a question I will defer to Mr. Teuber. He 

mentioned that he had a fair amount of costs, just in the tribal people. It sounds like a lot of housing that he has to provide in the 

absence of that . I defer to Mr. Teuber to answer that question. 

Mr. TEUBER. Yes, thank you. I believe the annual sum is estimated for this year to be $4.5 million for outside contracts that we 

are using for local Anchorage-based hotels. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Okay. So very cost efficient process to build 

the facility? 

Mr. TEUBER. That is correct. I think that the opportunity before 

us is one where we can provide a more culturally appropriate setting for our expectant mothers, for those who are traveling in with 

traumatic injuries, for the convenience. Anchorage can sometimes 

be a difficult place for Alaska Natives who come from rural parts 

of the State to navigate in order to receive their services at ANMC. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Okay. Vice Chairman Barrasso? 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Questions for Jefferson Keel. Everyone here knows your service 

as a former Army Ranger. You are a decorated military veteran, we 

are so grateful for your service and for what you continue to do for 

this Country. I know that you are quite familiar with issues facing 

our Nation’s veterans, and you specifically spoke to that. 

S. 1352 includes a demonstration project to assist Indian veteran 

housing. It allows tribal housing programs to use current administrative infrastructure to operate the HUD Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing voucher program. You talked about running out of 

time, trying to use different programs. I am wondering if you think 

the current tribal administrative infrastructure needs to be adjusted to operate this voucher program? 

Mr. KEEL. Thank you, Senator. I believe that there are, first of 

all, we do support the demonstration project. I think that is a very 

important project. As soon as we can get that in place, it would be 

a tremendous advantage. I think there are times when many of our 

people don’t qualify for some of these vouchers. Sometimes there is 

a misunderstanding between the access to those vouchers between 

the State. Some of the housing authorities are chartered under 

State law. Therefore we have to go through the State administration to get our veterans applied to this. I think that will be clarified 

by this. 

23

Senator BARRASSO. One of the components of this demonstration 

project for the Indian veterans requires that the tribal grantees 

provide information to the Secretary of HUD to assess the project’s 

effectiveness. I am wondering how you think the effectiveness of 

this demonstration project should really be determined. 

Mr. KEEL. That is very difficult to say until it actually begins. 

But I would think that there are a number of tribal housing authorities across the Country that have, there are a number of tribes 

that have developed programs already to assist these veterans in 

their own communities. So I think that reaching out to them for 

information and their input would be very helpful. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Senator Tester? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank you 

and Ranking Member Barrasso for introducing, along with a bunch 

of co-sponsors, myself included, the NAHASDA bill. My questioning 

is going to focus on that. 

I am going to start with you, Sandra Henriquez. Thank you for 

being here. There are statistics out there that show that American 

Indians suffer from homelessness and severe housing needs, such 

as overcrowding, lack of plumbing, heating, electricity. Have you 

seen those statistics? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. I have seen the statistics; more importantly, I 

have seen the housing. 

Senator TESTER. Perfect. What do you see as your role in improving that situation? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. I think there are several things. I think my role 

is, one, to both advocate for the program, to advocate for funding 

for the program, and to advocate for a set of rules, regulations, that 

streamline the operations, so that money can be used more effectively by the tribes. 

Senator TESTER. Good. Did you have money set aside for Indian 

housing directly? Is there a carve-out for that in your budget? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. There is a line item in the HUD budget for Native American, Native Hawaiian and Native Alaska housing. 

Senator TESTER. How much is in that line item? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. I think with the President’s 2014 request, I 

think it was about $650 million. 

Senator TESTER. So if you are a tribe in, let’s say the Crow Indian Reservation in Montana, how do they get access to that 

money? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. It is done by formula. And the formula is done 

through a consultation, negotiated rulemaking process. The last 

consultation and formula happened a number of years ago. In fact, 

by the end of August, we will start a new one. It is all formula 

driven by membership. 

Senator TESTER. So each tribe right now there is a formula out 

there that each tribe, and I assume Alaska Natives and Hawaiian 

Natives would be in the same boat? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. Alaska Natives are. Hawaiian Natives are in a 

different allocation. 

24

Senator TESTER. Okay. That is fine. So each tribe gets X number 

of dollars, is that the way it works? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. Correct, based on their size and membership enrollment. 

Senator TESTER. Based on population or based on land mass? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. Based on population. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. And when was the last time that that formula was looked at? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. Five years ago, I am being told, sir. 

Senator TESTER. And then I assume it is updated with every census? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. We will be going into it again at the end of this 

month, I am sorry, at the end of August, we will start formal negotiations again with tribes. 

Senator TESTER. There is $650 million in that fund. Realistically, 

just realistically, how many dollars should be in that fund? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. I don’t know how to answer that question. I 

would say this. We are currently conducting a housing needs survey in Indian Country, which will help us quantify what the need 

is. The 200,000 number that we have right now we think is probably low. We think the need is significantly greater. 

Senator TESTER. When do you anticipate that needs survey to be 

back? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. We are probably a year away. We started the 

survey instrument in collecting and training and have asked other 

tribes as well to use the survey and submit it to give us more information. 

Senator TESTER. I certainly hope that that will be distributed to 

this Committee when it is done. 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. Very good, thank you. A number of the Plains 

Tribes have contacted me, there are concerns about training and 

technical assistance dollars. Are you familiar with this fund? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. They argue that NAHASDA’s original negotiated rulemaking determined that the spirit and intent of 

NAHASDA was to deliver training and technical assistance 

through the National American Indian Housing Council. However, 

administrators tell me this process has changed. Has it changed? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. Yes, sir. It changed in the fiscal year 2013 appropriations language. It directed us to initiate competition for organizations and contractors with experience in Indian housing to 

provide services. 

Senator TESTER. So that was done in 2013? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. HUD approps? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. Okay, thank you for that. 

We have a little bit of time left. I am going to go to Jefferson 

Keel. Jefferson, you represent NCAI, you represent, and correct me 

if I am wrong, about 560 tribes, somewhere around there? 

Mr. KEEL. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. Could you give me an idea, number one, are 

they pretty well united behind NAHASDA? Are there issues that 

25

they have with this bill generally speaking that are systemic? Or 

are they pretty happy with the way it is designed? 

Mr. KEEL. Generally speaking, I believe that across Indian Country, Indian Country is united that NAHASDA does definitely need 

to be reauthorized. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. I just want to thank you all for your testimony. I appreciate it. I am sorry I didn’t ask the other three questions, but, next time. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding 

this hearing. Thanks to the Vice Chairman. 

I want to thank Ms. Harris for her testimony, all the witnesses. 

As you mentioned, Chairwoman Karen Diver was supposed to be 

here today. She couldn’t make it, and she was going to talk about 

this bill, S. 920. So I ask that her testimony be added to the record. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Without objection. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

I would like to briefly describe the bill. S. 920 would allow the 

Fond du Lac Band of the Ojibwe in Minnesota, transfer its lands 

at its own discretion, it is a tract of land. Basically their land is 

checkerboarded. This would just be exchanging land with the county, Carlton County, that is outside the reservation. Carlton County 

would get that. The tracts of land are of equivalent value. And it 

has to be done this way, because the law that is relevant here prohibits any ‘‘purchase, grant, lease or other conveyance of lands or 

of any title or claim to thereof from any Indian nation or tribe of 

Indians unless authorized by Congress.’’

So we just have to pass this, and that is what we have to do, 

right, Ms. Harris? 

Ms. HARRIS. Right. 

Senator FRANKEN. And you guys are for this? 

Ms. HARRIS. Yes. We are certainly for this. 

Senator FRANKEN. It is non-controversial. 

Ms. HARRIS. Right. 

Senator FRANKEN. This is just allowing these things that are of 

equal value, for Fond du Lac to get land within its reservation back 

that it can build houses on and also use for hunting and stuff like 

that. I just want my colleagues to know this is really a non-controversial piece of legislation. I will move on. 

Assistant Secretary Henriquez, as you know, Minnesota tribes 

have been leaders in providing services to Native American veterans. One thing, Native Americans volunteer for military service 

at a higher rate than any other ethnic group in the Country. 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. That is correct. 

Senator FRANKEN. And the Fond du Lac Band just held a grand 

opening for a new development to provide 10 units of supportive 

housing for Native American veterans. This is the first project, as 

I understand it, in the United States that specifically addresses the 

needs of homeless veterans on a reservation. 

I support the provision in the reauthorization of the Native 

American Housing and Self-Determination Act that will help tribes 

better access funding through the HUD Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing program. Let me ask you, how would your adminVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Dec 17, 2013 Jkt 085897 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\85897.TXT JACK
26

istration help innovative tribes like the Fond du Lac access this 

program? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. Let me start by saying that the VASH program, 

as you know, is done with HUD in conjunction with the Veterans 

Affairs. They provide the referrals of veterans to housing authorities. Our intent is to replicate that program, not to make it more 

complicated. We talked about a demonstration, we asked the Veterans Affairs if they could identify for us where they would do referrals in Indian Country. They have a program with Indian 

Health Services to act on their behalf. We think that there is plenty of need. We want to be able to streamline it, provide greater access to a source of funds for rental assistance that tribes have not 

had access to before. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. This is for Chairman Keel. As we 

consider reauthorizing the Native American Housing and Self-Determination Act, I think it is important for everyone to remember 

that homelessness in our tribal communities often doesn’t look like 

homelessness in other parts of the Country. In Indian Country 

there aren’t a lot of emergency shelters or transitional housing. 

Those who need help often are taken in by other members of the 

community, which can lead to overcrowding. 

That also makes it hard to measure the true level of need in Indian Country. When we can’t measure the true level of need, it is 

difficult to secure the resources to improve access to safe and affordable housing. 

So my question, Chairman Keel, is can you talk to me about 

some of the ways tribes have worked to document the need for affordable housing in their communities? How can the Federal Government support efforts to get an accurate measure of the true 

level of need in Indian Country? 

Mr. KEEL. Thank you, Senator, for that question. You described 

it very well. Many times in Indian Country, in our communities, 

homelessness is not really officially documented, because we have 

family and friends who will come and stay, they have no other 

place to go, and their families are not willing to put them out on 

the street. So they actually become residents of that shelter or that 

home. 

So we may have upwards of two or three families occupying one 

building or a home that is designed to accommodate one family. 

Even in our housing authority, and HUD, our homes are built two 

or three bedroom. Very few four bedroom to accommodate larger 

families. And so again, it is very, very difficult to document. 

But in many of our communities, we utilize our community 

health representatives, the CHRs and other tribal employees, and 

community health nurses and those folks, to help us acquire or get 

the documentation that is needed. Then we assist those families in 

going and applying for housing. 

Another issue is that many of our families don’t qualify because 

of either income guidelines, there is a catch-22. If you have no income you don’t qualify for housing. But you can’t have income if 

you don’t have a job. In many of our communities, the jobless rate, 

the high unemployment rates in many of our communities is sometimes upwards of 25, 30, 50 percent in some communities. That is 

very hard to document. 

27

So it is a revolving cycle. But again, we utilize our tribal employees, many of our health representatives, our veterans assistance 

programs and even just family members to come and help provide 

some of that documentation. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Senator Johnson? 

STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON,

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Henriquez, housing needs in Indian Country, I am concerned about unspent NAHASDA funds. Have you 

found that unspent funding is a widespread issue or one that is attributable to just a few agencies? What steps has HUD taken to address this issue? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. Thank you, Senator, for the question. First, I 

want to say that it is important for everyone to realize that most 

tribes, the vast majority, get their allocations and spend it and 

spend it in a timely way. Until recently, there was no time frame 

in which housing agencies or tribes had to obligate their money. As 

of 2012, there is now a five-year obligation deadline. 

That said, the monies put into our control system for housing authorities to draw down, for tribal agencies to draw down, the oldest 

money gets drawn out first, so that we try and make sure that people are staying as current as possible. We have also implemented 

new reporting requirements through the last negotiated rulemaking. That gives us a fuller picture and we continue to take enforcement actions where we are noticing that spending habits and 

patterns are not consistent with both need and with the plans that 

the tribes file for themselves. 

Senator JOHNSON. Ms. Henriquez, as Paul Iron Cloud from Pine 

Ridge noted at a recent hearing, tribes in South and North Dakota 

have undertaken a Dakota housing needs assessment pilot project 

in order to get population and needs data to counter less accurate 

census numbers. What obstacles do tribes face to use this data in 

lieu of census data for purposes of the housing formula? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. I can’t think of any obstacles. In fact, we are 

conducting a housing needs survey, and we have asked tribes, such 

as Pine Ridge, to contribute the work they are doing in their own 

tribes to augment the survey that we are taking, that is being done 

by the Department. We think that pulling both the statistically significant sample that we are doing along with the information that 

the tribes are collecting and sharing with us, will give us a very 

broad and better picture of the need of what housing is required 

in Indian Country. 

Senator JOHNSON. Ms. Henriquez and President Keel, are there 

tools HUD needs from Congress in order to assist tribes in 

leveraging their NAHASDA funds with private and other Federal 

sources of funds? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. Thank you, sir. It is a great question. I should 

say that what we need is the expansion, the use of tax credits in 

Indian Country, using those as a development tool to get other people’s money into the mix to augment Federal dollars, so those dollars would go farther. It would help stimulate both economic development, increase housing. Increasing housing is an economic driver 

28

as well, but also to put in place much-needed housing for tribes on 

reservation land. 

I also think that we need to encourage the banks to do business 

in Indian Country. When I do an event in Indian Country, I always 

see who has been funding a particular housing project that has 

been built, and I ask those bankers and investors to please go talk 

to their colleagues in the business to get them to understand that 

these are dollars well invested, will be well spent, will be cared for. 

It is a good risk, it is a worthy risk, and that they should think 

about expanding their business models into Indian Country as well. 

Senator JOHNSON. President Keel? 

Mr. KEEL. Yes, sir, thank you, Senator, for that question. The 

idea that, well, first of all, in Indian Country, Indian tribes lack access to capital. The limited number of financial institutions or lending institutions or investors really inhibits our ability to develop 

programs that will accommodate our citizens. 

The most recent data that we have has noted that 86 percent of 

Native communities lack access to a single financial institution. 

That is incredible. So we would ask that the President’s Council, 

now, this new Council on Indian Affairs, would address that and 

take that across all Federal agencies. 

We also believe that the HEARTH Act will assist in the tribal 

leasing laws, so that tribes can develop then their own systems and 

accommodate that. 

The final thing would be the HUD 184 loan program that allows 

tribes to, or individual homeowners, to access loans to build homes. 

Senator JOHNSON. To what degree does trust status and Indian 

law impact the lack of financial institutions in Indian Country? 

Ms. HENRIQUEZ. Thank you, Senator. I do believe that having 

trust land in the mix in terms of developing housing makes it harder for financial institutions just to understand the model. I think 

if they just spent time understanding the model, understanding 

that it doesn’t increase the risk, that they would be more comfortable over time seeing it work and having examples that are successful. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. I want to thank all the members of the Committee for their presence today, and for the witnesses being here 

and your testimony. All three of these pieces of legislation are important to the Committee and we look forward to moving them 

when we return in September. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(29)

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

I want to thank the Chair and Vice-Chair for holding this important hearing 

today to consider three important legislative measures. I especially want to thank 

Senator Cantwell and Senator Barrasso for their strong leadership in introducing 

and holding a prompt hearing on, S. 1352, a bill to reauthorize the Native American 

Housing and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) through the end of fiscal year 

2018. I strongly support NAHASDA reauthorization and share the high priority the 

leadership and members of this Committee place on addressing the unmet housing 

needs of Native Americans. 

S. 1352 seeks to further tribal self-governance, streamline and simplify the process of providing housing assistance to Native communities and strengthen the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) housing assistance programs 

that have been so successful in helping Native Hawaiian families and so many 

American Indians and Alaska Native families gain access to much needed housing. 

American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians face unique barriers to 

housing development and their communities face the highest rates of national poverty. The most recent data available from the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, the Census Bureau, and the Government Accounting Office illustrates 

the widely disproportionate rates of unmet housing need faced by Native Americans.

• Approximately 28 percent of reservation housing units lack adequate plumbing 

and kitchen facilities, a rate more than five times greater than the national average;

• Nearly 46 percent of Native households are overcrowded, a rate almost three 

times greater than the rest of the country; and,

• While Native Americans make up less than 1 percent of the general population, 

they comprise 8 percent of the country’s homeless.

These national statistics are a stark reminder of existing housing disparities between Native and Non-Native communities in the United States, and yet the data 

for the State of Hawaii is even worse. Unfortunately, HUD statistics have shown 

that Native Hawaiians face the highest rates of inadequate housing, overcrowding 

and homelessness in the nation. 

There are other factors, but two facts contribute significantly to the challenges 

faced by many Native Hawaiian families in search of decent and affordable housing: 

Native Hawaiian families rank last in the nation in average annual pay, while the 

cost of living in Hawaii ranks the highest of all fifty states—116 percent of the national average. 

NAHASDA housing assistance has played a critical role in helping to address the 

housing needs of Native Hawaiian families in my state. I have witnessed the success 

of these HUD programs—how they have benefitted Native Hawaiian communities, 

increased homeownership, improved living conditions, and changed lives. Native Hawaiian housing assistance programs remain an integral part of the NAHASDA success story and I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this measure through the Congress. 

Thank you to all of the witnesses who travelled here to participate in this hearing. Your contributions will be invaluable to the Committee as we move forward on 

this Native American housing assistance reauthorization legislation. We must all 

pledge our best efforts to support, S.1352, to sustain and improve housing opportunities, build stronger and more self-sufficient Native communities, and create a 

more vibrant national economy. 

Thank you. 

30

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. KAREN R. DIVER, CHAIRWOMAN, FOND DU LAC BAND

OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA

I am Karen R. Diver, Chairwoman of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa. On behalf of the Fond du Lac Band, I would like to thank the Committee 

for scheduling this hearing to consider S. 920, and for inviting me to testify regarding this bill. I would also like to thank Senator Franken and Senator Klobuchar for 

their work in considering the Band’s request for this measure and for introducing 

this bill. 

The Fond du Lac Band and Carlton County, Minnesota have been working jointly 

on a number of matters. One of these, which brings us to Congress, is our effort 

to find ways in which the Band and the County can address problems arising from 

checkerboard land ownership within the Fond du Lac Reservation, and enhance the 

ability of both the Band and the County to make the best use of the lands that each 

of us holds. 

S. 920 would enable us to do this. S. 920 would provide the Band with authority 

under federal law to convey title to land that the Band holds in fee simple. This 

would address the last remaining step that is needed in order for the Fond du Lac 

Band and Carlton County to implement an agreement that we have for a land exchange that will greatly benefit us both and which has been processed through and 

satisfied all other requirements of Minnesota law. Carlton County’s support for this 

measure is set out in a letter dated July 3, 2013 from Robert Olean, Chair, Carlton 

County Board of Commissioners, to Maria Cantwell, Chairwoman of the Senate 

Committee on Indian Affairs. A copy of the County Commissioner’s letter is attached to this testimony and we ask that it be included as part of the record. 

We also note that a companion bill to S. 920, H.R. 2650, was introduced in the 

House on July 10, 2013 and referred to the House Natural Resources Committee, 

Subcommittee on Indian Alaska Native Affairs which held a hearing on that bill on 

July 23, 2013. 

Background 

The Fond du Lac Band occupies a Reservation in northeastern Minnesota that 

was carved out of our aboriginal territory pursuant to our 1854 Treaty with the 

United States. Treaty of September 30, 1854, 10 Stat. 1109. Our Reservation is but 

a fraction of the Band’s aboriginal territory and is the home of more than 6,700 

Tribal members and other Indians who live on and near the Reservation. The 1854 

Treaty established a Reservation that encompassed more than 101,000 acres. While 

the Treaty provided that this was to be a permanent homeland for the exclusive use 

and benefit of the Fond du Lac Band, as a result of the federal allotment policies 

in the early Twentieth century, a considerable part of our Reservation lands were 

opened to private entry by homesteaders and others. Over the years, many of those 

lands were forfeited for nonpayment of taxes, and have since been administered by 

the County with title held by the State of Minnesota. Land-ownership within the 

Reservation is checkerboarded, with tax-forfeited lands held by the County 

intermixed with trust land held by the Fond du Lac Band and our Band members. 

The checkerboard landownership significantly limits both the Band’s and the 

County’s ability to make effective use of our lands. Several years ago, the Band and 

the County began to look for ways in which to work together to improve this. We 

determined that we could do this through a land exchange, and the Band and the 

County subsequently entered into an agreement to implement a land exchange. 

The Band and the County have worked jointly on this land exchange and it will 

greatly benefit both the Band and the County. The land exchange involves 1,451 

acres of land located outside the Fond du Lac Reservation which are owned in fee 

simple by the Band. These lands would be exchanged for tax-forfeited lands of 

equivalent value (approximately 3,200 acres) that are administered by Carlton 

County which are located within the Fond du Lac Reservation. 

By this land exchange, both the Band and the County can consolidate scattered 

tracts of land into areas that can be more effectively managed and productively 

used. The land that would be transferred by the County to the Band lies within the 

Fond du Lac Reservation. Because these lands are intermixed with Indian trust 

lands, and tend to be of poorer quality, there are limits to the County’s ability to 

effectively use them. A transfer of this land to the Band, however, will greatly benefit the Band by providing land on which the Band can construct much-needed housing for Band members as well as areas that can be preserved in their natural state 

to enhance Band member hunting and gathering opportunities. 

The land that would be transferred from the Band to the County is held by the 

Band in fee simple, lies outside the Reservation, and is very good timber land. The 

transfer of these lands to the County will greatly enhance the County’s forestry reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Dec 17, 2013 Jkt 085897 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\85897.TXT JACK
31

sources. Independent third party appraisals have been done and the property to be 

exchanged is of equivalent value. 

Why Legislation Is Needed 

The proposed land exchange has been processed through and met all of the requirements of Minnesota law for such an exchange. Minn. Stat. Ch. 94.344. This includes the appraisals, public hearings, environmental review, and title review. However, because the federal Non-Intercourse Act, 25 U.S.C. § 177, prohibits any ‘‘purchase, grant, lease, or other conveyance of lands, or of any title or claim thereto, 

from any Indian nation or tribe of Indians’’ unless authorized by Congress, Minnesota advised the Band and the County that the State cannot give final approval 

to the land exchange without an Act of Congress authorizing the Band to convey 

its title to this land. 

The Non-Intercourse Act has been in effect since the earliest days of the Republic. 

Under that statute, a sale or other conveyance of tribally-owned land is of no effect 

unless the sale or conveyance is made pursuant to either a treaty with the United 

States or federal statute. See County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation, 470 U.S. 

226, 234 (1985); Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 677–678 

(1974). See also Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law, § 15.06 at pp. 1027–1039 

(2012 ed.) (Cohen’s Handbook). The statute is broadly written. In recent years, however, questions have been raised about whether the restrictions contained in 25 

U.S.C. § 177 would apply to land purchased by a tribe without federal involvement 

and held by the tribe in fee simple. See Cohen’s Handbook, § 150.06[4] at pp. 1034–

36. To date, the United States Supreme Court has not resolved that question. In 

its most recent decision where the issue was raised, the Court stated that ‘‘[t]his 

Court has never determined whether the Indian Non-Intercourse Act, which was enacted in 1834, applies to land that has been rendered alienable by Congress and 

later reacquired by an Indian tribe.’’ Cass Cnty., Minn. v. Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, 524 U.S. 103, 115 n. 5 (1998). The Court there declined to decide that 

question because the issue had not been presented to or considered by the lower federal courts in that case. Id. The Supreme Court has not since resolved the issue left 

open by the Cass County case. 

To address this Congress has, in other circumstances, provided the necessary federal authorization for Indian tribes to convey interests in tribally-owned fee lands. 

Two such examples involve other tribes in Minnesota. In particular, Act of June 20, 

2000, Pub. L. 106–217, 114 Stat. 344, provides that the Lower Sioux Indian Community in Minnesota ‘‘may lease, sell, convey, warrant, or otherwise transfer all or any 

part of the Community’s interest in any real property that is not held in trust by 

the United States for the benefit of the Community’’ ‘‘without further approval, ratification, or authorization by the United States.’’ Similarly, in the Native American 

Technical Corrections Act of March 2, 2004, Public Law 108–204, section 126, 118 

Stat. 542, Congress did the same for the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community 

in Minnesota, authorizing the Tribe to convey land it holds in fee simple to others 

without further federal approval. 

S. 920 would do the same for the Fond du Lac Band. S. 920 is modeled on the 

2000 and 2004 statutes that were enacted for the other Minnesota tribes. S. 920 

would provide the necessary congressional authorization for the Fond du Lac Band 

to convey its title to the lands that the Band holds in fee simple, and thereby enable 

the Band and the County to complete their proposed land exchange. 

While the immediate need for this legislation is the current proposed land exchange, the Band and the County have identified other lands which are appropriate 

candidates for similar exchanges in the future. Accordingly federal legislation that 

would generally permit the Band to convey land that the Band holds in fee simple—

as done in S. 920—will facilitate similar transactions in the future. 

Conclusion 

The Fond du Lac Band and Carlton County have worked together to find ways 

to meet our shared interest in improving our ability to effectively use and manage 

our lands so that we can better meet the needs of the people we serve. S. 920 would 

provide the Band with the federal authorization needed to complete the land exchange that would serve those objectives. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions that the Committee may have and 

to provide any additional information that the Committee may need to review this. 

We very much appreciate the Committee’s consideration of this important matter, 

and ask that the Committee favorably report on this bill. 

Miigwech. Thank you. 

Attachment

32

COMMISSIONERS OFFICE, COUNTY OF CARLTON, CARLTON COUNTY

COURTHOUSE

Carlton, MN, July 3, 2013

Hon. MARIA CANTWELL, Chairwoman, 

Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, 

Washington, DC. 

RE: S.920—THE FOND DU LAC BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA NONINTERCOURSE ACT BILL

Dear Chairwoman Cantwell:

The Carlton County Board of Commissioners supports the Fond duLac Band of 

Lake Superior Chippewa in its quest to seek passage of S. 920, a bill introduced 

on May 9, 2013 by Senator Franken, cosponsored by Senator Klobuchar, which 

would allow the Fond du Lac Band to convey Band fee simple property without further federal approval. The bill has been referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. 

As a representative for the Carlton County Board of Commissioners, I would be 

pleased to answer any questions and provide any additional information the Committee may need to review on this matter, and the Board asks that the Committee 

favorably report on S. 920. 

The County Board and the Fond du Lac Band entered into a ‘‘Class B’’ land exchange under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 94.344, which governs the process by 

which Tax Forfeited Lands administered by County Government can exchange titles 

to land with other entities. The process requires independent third party appraisals 

of all subject properties, public hearings, environmental review of properties by the 

State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and title review by the State 

of Minnesota Attorney General’s Office before titles to property can be exchanged. 

All conditions of the Statute have been met except for the Attorney General’s Opinion that Fond du Lac Band does not have authority to exchange titles subject to federal law, 25 U.S.C. 177, the Indian Non-Intercourse Act which states that consent 

must be given by Congress before the Fond du Lac Band can alienate fee simple 

property. 

The purpose of the land exchange is to consolidate County managed lands in the 

headwaters of the Nemadji River system and to return to Tribal management tax 

forfeited lands within the Reservation boundary. The tax forfeited lands within the 

Reservation boundary are scattered amongst Tribally managed lands and in exchanging with the Band, would consolidated Tribal lands. The lands Fond du Lac 

will be exchanging to Carlton County will consolidate and provide access into existing county Memorial forest land and also protect the headwaters of the Nemadji 

River, a State-listed impaired water. 

The U.S. Congress has enacted bills authorizing other Minnesota tribes to convey 

tribally-owned interests in fee simple property. The Carlton County Board supports 

the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa in their pursuit of seeking passage of S. 920 from Congress allowing the Band to convey interests in tribally 

owned property now and into the future. 

The Carlton County Board of Commissioners looks forward to working with you 

and the Committee and with Fond duLac Band. If you have further questions or 

need additional information, please feel free to contact us at any time. The Board 

appreciates your consideration of this matter and fully supports Fond du Lac Band 

of Lake Superior Chippewa in this endeavor. 

Sincerely, 

ROBERT OLEAN, 

Chair, Carlton County Board of Commissioners.

GREGORY J BERNU, 

Carlton County Land Commissioner. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAROL GORE, PRESIDENT/CEO, COOK INLET HOUSING

AUTHORITY

Thank you, Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice-Chairman Barrasso, and members of the 

Senate Committee on Indian Affairs for this opportunity to provide testimony regarding a bill that is of critical importance to American Indian and Alaska Native 

families across the nation—the NAHASDA Reauthorization Act of 2013, S. 1352. 

Headquartered in Anchorage, Alaska, Cook Inlet Housing Authority (CIHA) has 

a service area that covers a vast portion of southcentral Alaska. These lands are 

home to tens of thousands of Alaska Native and American Indian people, all too 

33

many of whom struggle to find safe, sanitary, affordable housing. Unfortunately, the 

severity of the need for housing among American Indian and Alaska Native families 

is ubiquitous not just in the communities we serve and the remainder of Alaska, 

but throughout Indian Country. 

The passage of NAHASDA in 1996 represented a major advancement in the Indian Housing delivery system. Recipients have since built, acquired, and/or rehabilitated more than 110,000 homes. They have developed new housing; modernized, 

weatherized, and rehabilitated old homes; provided rental assistance; created home 

loan programs; delivered housing and financial literacy counseling; offered down 

payment assistance; prevented crime; and even revitalized deteriorated neighborhoods. Although NAHASDA has empowered tribal recipients to effectively address 

housing needs in their communities, the severity and pervasiveness of those needs 

makes continued federal investment in Indian housing a top priority for virtually 

all Indian tribes. 

NAHASDA is presently authorized through September 30, 2013, making the timely passage of S. 1352 a time-sensitive endeavor. We thank members of the Committee and their dedicated staff for the work they have already done on the reauthorization bill, and we stand ready to provide whatever assistance may be needed 

to ensure that S. 1352 is enacted promptly. 

S. 1352 Contains Important Amendments 

S. 1352 contains amendments to NAHASDA that will streamline and otherwise 

improve the delivery of Indian housing. The following provisions stand out to CIHA 

as being particularly effective in addressing existing barriers and promoting innovation:

• Section 101 eliminates the need for tribes to painstakingly account for income 

that is generated off of income that is in turn generated off of grant amounts. 

If such a requirement sounds unduly cumbersome and bureaucratic, that is because it is.

• Sections 101 and 102 address tribally-determined wage rates and environmental review requirements in a manner that will eliminate administrative 

redundancies where multiple funding sources are being used in a single project.

• Section 204 allows for modest increases in Total Development Cost limits, which 

present a significant barrier to energy efficient construction and the integration 

of alternative energy technology into Indian housing projects.

• Section 404 enables tribes to be competitive when seeking Low Income Housing 

Tax Credits.

Mark-Ups Needed to S. 1352

Cook Inlet Housing urges the Committee to consider three important changes during the mark-up of S. 1352. These changes are necessary to implement provisions 

in the manner we believe the Committee intends. 

1. Demonstration Program for Homeless or At-Risk Indian Veterans 

Cook Inlet Housing applauds Committee members for taking bold steps to address 

the shameful prevalence of homelessness among American Indian and Alaska Native Veterans. We strongly support the concept of a rental assistance demonstration 

program for homeless and at-risk Native veterans, as outlined in section 401 of S. 

1352. However, one minor but critical amendment is needed for the demonstration 

program to achieve its intended results. 

Section 401 of S. 1352 presently provides that the program must benefit Indian 

veterans who ‘‘are residing on or near Indian lands,’’ making the definition of the 

term ‘‘Indian lands’’ critical. The definition used in S. 1352 comes from the Native 

American Business Development, Trade Promotion, and Tourism Act of 2000 (25 

U.S.C. 4302). That definition, in turn, cross-references multiple other definitions in 

other pieces of legislation. This approach is confusing and cumbersome, and it does 

not reflect the manner in which Indian housing is actually delivered under 

NAHASDA. 

The Indian housing delivery system is structured around the delivery of housing 

within ‘‘Indian Areas,’’ as that term is already defined in NAHASDA. Further, the 

meaning of the term ‘‘Indian Areas’’ has been carefully considered and clarified during Negotiated Rulemaking between the tribes and the Federal Government. The 

term has been thoughtfully defined to reflect the realities of the Indian Housing delivery system.

Proposed Revision: We urge the Committee to replace the term ‘‘Indian lands’’ 

in section 401 with the term ‘‘Indian areas’’ and to define the term ‘‘Indian 

areas’’ as having the meaning given the term in section 4(11) of the Native 

34

American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (25 U.S.C. 4103(11)) 

and its implementing regulations at 24 C.F.R. Part 1000.

2. Environmental Review 

S. 1352 includes language proposed by Indian Country that will allow NAHASDAbased environmental reviews to cover other federal funding sources, so as to reduce 

potential redundancy (Section 102 of S. 1352). However, rather than include such 

language as a new section 105(e) as proposed, the Senate language would replace 

existing section 105(d). The existing 105(d) contains provisions that authorize HUD 

to waive environmental review requirements when a waiver will not frustrate NEPA 

or threaten the health or safety of the community, is the result of an inadvertent 

error, and may be corrected through the sole action of the recipient. This limited 

waiver authority is an important provision that tribes and TDHEs have relied upon, 

and which has not been controversial. The waiver authority should remain in 

NAHASDA.

Proposed Revision: CIHA believes that the removal of the limited waiver provision in current section 105(d) of NAHASDA may be unintentional. We suggest 

that the new environmental review language be inserted as a new 105(e) and 

not as a replacement for 105(d).

3. Conversion of Rental Unit to Homebuyer Unit 

Multiple recipients have expressed concern about potential ambiguity in the 

changes to section 205, specifically the new 205(d) (section 201 of S.1352). CIHA 

supports this provision but wants to ensure that its effect is clear. We believe that 

any ambiguity can likely be resolved with the following minor revisions:

Proposed Revision: ‘‘(d) PURCHASE.—In the case of rental housing that is 

made available to a current rental tenant for conversion to a homebuyer or 

lease-purchase unit, the current rental tenant may purchase through a contract 

to purchase, lease-purchase agreement, or any other sales agreement so long as 

the current rental tenant was if the unit is made available for occupancy by a family that is a low-income family at the time of initial occupancy.’’

Additional Provisions Should Be Included in S. 1352

S. 1352 does not contain several provisions that were offered by the National 

American Indian Housing Council at the consensus of its membership, which includes 271 organizations representing 463 tribes. Notable among those provisions 

are:

• Elimination or modification of the 30 percent maximum rental payment requirement. S. 1352 does not contain any language eliminating or modifying the 30 

percent rule, which imposes an unsustainable operating cost burden on projects 

developed under NAHASDA.

• Reserve accounts. S. 1352 does not include the language proposed by NAIHC to 

expand the purposes for which reserve accounts can be used beyond administration and planning.

• Insurance requirements. S. 1352 does not include language that would limit insurance requirements to those units actually owned or managed by the tribe/

TDHE. Presently, tribes are required to maintain insurance on any units assisted under NAHASDA, even if those units are privately owned and the assistance provided is relatively minor.

Including the foregoing provisions in S. 1352 will address barriers to the delivery 

of Indian Housing and enable tribes to improve access to safe, affordable housing 

in the communities they serve. 

Again, we extend our sincere appreciation to the Chairwoman, Vice-Chair, and 

Members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. S. 1352 makes a number of 

critical improvements to the Indian housing delivery system, and we fully support 

the bill subject to the critical mark-ups identified above. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANNETTE BRYAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PUYALLUP NATION

HOUSING AUTHORITY

Good afternoon, Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice-Chairman Barrasso, and distinguished members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. My name is Annette 

Bryan, and I am the Executive Director of the Puyallup Nation Housing Authority 

(PNHA). I would like to thank the Chair, the Vice-Chair, and other Committee 

Members for introducing S. 1352, the bill to reauthorize the Native American HousVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Dec 17, 2013 Jkt 085897 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\85897.TXT JACK
35

ing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA). The housing needs for the 

Puyallup Tribe, and across Indian country, are extreme. The NAHASDA has provided PNHA with tools to make notable progress in addressing the housing needs 

of our Tribe, but there is still a significant unmet need that is far too large. The 

NAHASDA has been and will continue to be a critically needed tool to enable tribes 

to meet the overwhelming need for safe, affordable, and sanitary housing for their 

members. Since the current version of the statute expires on September 30, 2013, 

timing is important. We appreciate the efforts of the Committee members and their 

staff to introduce the reauthorization bull and we look forward to working with you 

to ensure that it is enacted as soon as possible. 

S. 1352 Contains Much Needed Amendments 

S. 1352 contains a number of amendments to the NAHASDA and related legislation that will provide important benefits to Indian housing. PNHA supports the proposed amendments contained in S. 1352 (subject to the needed mark ups described 

below to fix what appear to be inadvertent ambiguities or confusion). In particular, 

PNHA appreciates and supports the following provisions:

• Section 101, dealing with program income, which will foster greater flexibility 

and creativity in use of program income and in the use of income generated by 

such funds.

• Sections 101 and 102, dealing with tribally-determined wage rates and environmental review respectively, which will reduce administrative redundancies 

where multiple funding sources are being used in a single project.

• Section 201, which authorizes a family who initially occupied a rental unit as 

a low-income family but later gains enough income to exceed the low-income 

threshold to convert to a homebuyer for that same unit without having to requalify as low-income.

• Section 204, allowing for increases in the Total Development Cost limits, which 

are one of the significant barriers to energy efficient design and construction.

• Section 404, which will foster greater competitiveness for tribes in seeking Low 

Income Housing Tax Credits.

Mark-Ups Needed to S. 1352

We urge the Committee to consider two changes during the mark-up of S. 1352. 

Both of these changes are needed to effectively implement two of the amendments 

in the bill. 

Environmental Review 

S. 1352 includes the language proposed by Indian Country to amend Section 105 

(Environmental Review) to allow for NAHASDA-based environmental reviews to 

cover other funding sources, so as to reduce potential redundancy (Section 102 of 

S. 1352). However, rather than include such language as a new section 105(e) as 

proposed, the Senate language would replace the existing 105(d). That section (existing 105(d)) contains the provisions that authorize HUD under certain limited circumstances to waive the environmental review requirements. The waiver authority 

is an important provision that tribes and TDHEs have relied upon, and which has 

not been controversial. The proposed amendment in S. 1352, however, would eliminate that waiver authority. This change may be inadvertent. The waiver authority 

needs to remain in the NAHASDA. With this, PNHA proposes the following revision. 

Proposed Revision:

PNHA urges that the new language be inserted as a new 105(e) and not as a 

replacement for 105(d).

Conversion of Rental Unit to Homebuyer Unit 

We have heard some concern expressed about potential ambiguity in the changes 

to Section 205, specifically the new 205(d) (section 201 of S. 1352). PNHA supports 

this provision, but wants to ensure that its objective and effect are clear. We think 

that any ambiguity can be resolved with a couple of minor wording changes, as follows: 

Proposed revision:

3 ‘‘(d) PURCHASE.—In the case of rental housing that is made available to a 

current rental tenant for conversion to a homebuyer or lease-purchase unit, the 

current rental tenant may purchase through a contract to purchase, lease-purchase agreement, or any other sales agreement so long as the current rental tenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Dec 17, 2013 Jkt 085897 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\85897.TXT JACK
36

ant was if the unit is made available for occupancy by a family that is a lowincome family at the time of initial occupancy.’’

Additional Items PNHA Would Like to See in S. 1352

As necessary as its proposed amendments are, S. 1352 does not contain several 

items that are very important to Indian Country. Among them are the following:

• 30 percent maximum rental payment requirement. S. 1352 does not contain any 

language eliminating or modifying the 30 percent rule, which imposes costly 

burdens on Indian Country housing development and maintenance.

• Timelines for HUD to act and ‘‘deemed approved’’ provisions. S. 1352 does not 

include timelines for HUD to act with regard to certain waiver or approval requests, and which would provide that such a request is ‘‘deemed approved’’ if 

HUD fails to act within timeline.

• Reserve Accounts. S. 1352 does not include the NAIHC-proposed language that 

would expand the purposes for which reserve accounts can be used beyond just 

administration and planning.

• Insurance requirements. S. 1352 does not include the NAIHC-proposed language 

that would limit the tribe/TDHE insurance requirements and maintenance policy requirements to those units owned or managed by the tribe/TDHE (excluding from this requirement homes that are only ‘‘assisted’’ with NAHASDA 

funds).

• LOCCS edits. The Senate Bill does not include the NAIHC-proposed language 

that would require that HUD give notice and opportunity for a hearing before 

imposing a ‘‘LOCCS edit’’ on a recipient’s funds.

All of these additional items would enable tribes and TDHEs to better address 

the housing needs in their communities. We ask the Committee as it moves forward 

on S. 1352 to include them in the final legislation. 

In closing, we greatly appreciate the effort of the Chair, Vice-Chair, Committee 

Members, and their respective staff in developing and introducing a NAHASDA reauthorization bill in a timely fashion, and for addressing a number of critically important issues. While we think that some improvements could be made, we fully 

support the proposed amendments (subject to the requested mark ups). 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL THOM, CHAIRMAN, KARUK TRIBE HOUSING

AUTHORITY; VICE-CHAIRMAN, KARUK TRIBE

Greetings Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice-Chairman Barrasso and distinguished 

members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. My name is Michael Thom, 

and I am the Chairman of the Karuk Tribe Housing Authority (KTHA), as well as 

the Vice Chair of the Karuk Tribe. I am honored to provide these comments as testimony for today’s hearing in support of the reauthorization of the Native American 

Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHSADA) and in support 

of S. 1352, which contains amendments to NAHASDA to make it even stronger. 

On behalf of the Karuk Tribe and the KTHA, I would like to thank the Chairwoman and the members of the Committee for introducing S. 1352, and for establishing the reauthorization of the NAHASDA as a priority legislative item for the 

Committee. In particular, we would like to thank the Chairwoman for her efforts 

to provide resources to meet the severe needs for housing assistance in Indian country and other rural areas. The housing needs for the Karuk Tribe, and across Indian 

country, are extreme. The NAHASDA has provided KTHA with tools to make notable progress in meeting the housing needs of our Tribe, but there is still a significant unmet need that is far too large. Reauthorization of the NAHASDA provides 

a necessary opportunity to strengthen the Act by increasing its flexibility and efficiency, but reauthorization is not enough: NAHASDA must also be funded in accordance with the dire housing needs in Indian country. 

The Karuk Tribe is made up of several communities, which are located along the 

Klamath River in two extremely rural portions of Siskiyou and Humboldt Counties 

located in northwestern California. The Tribe has approximately 3600 enrolled tribal members and the Tribe’s current reservation is approximately 600 acres, located 

on noncontiguous parcels within the three communities. The Karuk Tribe Housing 

Authority serves one of the most remote and poverty stricken areas of California. 

Many of our members live in remote, rural region where economic opportunity and 

jobs are very limited and unemployment is as extraordinarily high as the per capita 

income is low. This region was estimated to be 85 percent timber-dependent, and 

its economy has not recovered from the closures of local mills, a condition borne out 

37

the fact that, in 2006, 90 percent of the students enrolled in the local elementary 

school qualified for free lunch program. The census data for the Tribe’s Happy Camp 

community, which is where the Tribe’s administrative offices and the KTHA office 

are located, indicate that the median income of $23,095 is less than half the median 

income for the state and the per capita income only $13,614. The census data indicate that the unemployment rate for the Tribe is 83 percent, and BIA labor force 

data indicate that unemployment is at 89 percent. Not surprisingly, the KTHA waiting list for homes has over 350 families and individuals, many of whom have no 

other viable housing options. 

The Karuk Tribe Housing Authority—Innovations and Unmet Needs 

Since the passage of NAHASDA, the KTHA has developed a broad range of housing services, using the flexibility in the Act to meet the needs of our service population in the most efficient manner possible. We have developed several programs 

to utilize the tools in NAHASDA intended to facilitate homeownership. For example, 

we have established a tribal direct loan program using our Indian Housing Block 

Grant (IHBG). With this program we are able to fund four to five low interest loans 

each year for eligible Indian participants seeking to purchase a home off reservation. We have also established a down payment assistance program to eligible Indian recipients with loans or mortgages to improve existing homes or purchase or 

construct their own new off reservation homes. Both of these programs are designed 

to assist low income members, but even with these benefits, only a small fraction 

of the families on our waiting list are financially capable of participating in these 

programs. 

Additionally, the KTHA has implemented rental voucher programs to service the 

unique needs of college students and elders living off reservation. With these programs, we are able to provide rental assistance to between 28 and 36 students and 

26 elders each year. While these programs help address real housing needs, they 

are also targeted and do not assist the majority of those families on the waiting list. 

The vast majority of those on our waiting list (approximately 85 percent) do not 

have the means to participate in homeownership programs, and they are not students or elders. They are families and individuals seeking on-reservation low income 

rental units. However, we have only 187 low income housing units located on tribal 

land, of which 40 are set aside to serve the needs of low income elders and rents 

for elders are capped at $125/month. Unfortunately, at the current level of 

NAHASDA funds available to the KTHA, we do not have the resources to build new 

low income rental units. The lack of resources is compounded by a lack of infrastructure, such as water, sewer, and, in some communities, electricity, and our remote 

location, which increases the cost for labor and materials. These environmental circumstances increase the cost of new construction significantly. Therefore, our new 

construction is limited to the replacement of one or two homes per year for families 

and individuals living in substandard housing, who are living in extreme poverty 

(i.e., an annual income below 30 percent of the poverty level). 

Unmet Housing Needs in Indian Country 

The circumstances facing the KTHA are not unusual in Indian Country. In 2003, 

the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issues the report entitled ‘‘A Quiet Crisis in 

Indian Country, which includes a stark assessment of the unmet housing needs in 

Indian Country. The statistics cited in the report illustrate the dire needs of Native 

Americans nationwide. We cite the following of examples that reflect the issues we 

face at KTHA:

• Approximately 90,000 Indian families are homeless or under housed.

• 30 percent of reservation households are overcrowded, which is six times the 

national rate.

• 18 percent of reservation households are severely over crowded, which leads to 

a variety of other social ills such as domestic abuse, substance abuse, an increase in school dropout rates.

• Approximately 40 percent of on-reservation housing is considered inadequate as 

compared to six percent nationwide.

• A lack community infrastructure (water and sewer systems, electricity, and telephone service).

The Civil Rights Commission also noted that unmet housing needs in Indian 

Country are compounded by a number of factors such as depressed reservation 

economies, extreme poverty, lack of infrastructure to support housing communities, 

geographic isolation, environmental conditions on reservations, poor access to credit, 

and a lack of funding. Additionally, tribes and Indian housing authorities also face 

38

a myriad of overlapping and often duplicative administrative requirements, which 

require that tribes coordinate federal, local, and sometimes state requirements with 

tribal requirements, which is both time and resource intensive. 

In NAHASDA, Congress expressly recognized the acute housing needs in Indian 

Country and in Indian communities, and Congress recognized that the provision of 

affordable houses in safe and health environments is an essential element in the 

special role of the United States in helping tribes and their members to improve 

their housing conditions and socio-economic status. However, as the report of the 

Civil Rights Commission details, the purchasing power of the IHBG decreased during the years assessed (1998 to 2003). The report also contrasts the loss of IHBG 

purchasing power to the overall HUD budget, which increased during this period. 

The report notes that, when adjusted for inflation, the overall HUD discretionary 

budget increased by 39.6 percent, while the funding for HUD’s Native American programs decreased by 1.3 percent. Since the report was issued the funding for IHBG 

has remained flat or decreased at the same time construction costs have spiked, further eroding the purchasing power of tribes and Indian housing authorities. 

In 2000, HUD estimated that the NAHASDA funding at that time would only 

meet 5 percent of the need for Indian housing and that more than 230,000 housing 

units would still be needed. The Civil Rights Commission also cites an estimate by 

the Coalition for Indian Housing and Development that $1.1 billion would be needed 

to adequately fund NAHASDA. In testimony provided this year to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, the Native American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC) 

stated that the funding request for 2013 was only $650 million but that $875 million 

would be needed just to keep up with inflation. At these funding levels, even with 

additional flexibility and efficiencies, tribes and Indian housing authorities will not 

be able to even maintain the status quo, never mind addressing the unmet need. 

The 350 families on the KTHA waiting list are a symptom of this systematic underfunding. 

S. 1352—NAHASDA Reauthorization Bill 

First, let me emphasize that reauthorization of NAHASDA is a priority. As Congress has recognized repeatedly, Indian programs work best when Indian tribes 

have the authority to plan, implement, and administer federal programs and are 

freed from federal micromanagement. NAHASDA was enacted in 1996 to begin to 

implement the longstanding federal policy of tribal self-determination in the housing 

arena, and it is critical to continue that process. 

Despite the great progress that NAHASDA represents toward the goal of 

selfdetermination, amendments to NAHASDA are needed to increase flexibility and 

efficiencies in ways that will enable tribes and Indian housing authorities to stretch 

our underfunded block grants. We need the flexibility to identify and target our 

local needs, and we need to be free of micromanagement and overlapping and duplicative oversight requirements. 

S. 1352 includes many amendments which we support as a means to provide 

greater flexibility and to promote tribal self-governance and self-sufficiency. We do 

not oppose any of the proposed amendments, and we highlight several of the amendments we believe will have the greatest positive effect. We also offer suggested 

amendments to a few of the current proposals, which we believe will increase their 

effectiveness. Finally, we note that the discussion draft does not address certain 

issues which are very important to tribes and Indian housing authorities. While the 

proposed amendments may appear, at first sight, to merely be a laundry list of particulars, when you step back and look at the big picture, these amendments are integrated pieces of the larger goal inherent in NAHASDA—furtherance of tribal selfdetermination in meeting the housing needs of its members. I will address several 

of the proposed amendments to illustrate this point. 

Important Concepts Included in S. 1352

• Program income: Any income generated from program income (as opposed to 

being generated by IHBG funds) will be treated as nonprogram income and will 

have no restrictions. Currently, HUD treats income that is generated by program income as program income, with the attendant restrictions. Establishing 

greater flexibility in this area will spur innovation and development.

• Tribally determined prevailing wage rates: If a tribe has adopted prevailing 

wage rates applicable to a NAHASDA-funded project, those rates will apply to 

the entire project, including other federal funding sources. This amendment will 

greatly reduce redundancy in tracking and enforcing applicable wage rates, and 

allow for more funding to be used for constructing homes rather than administrative requirements.

39

• Environmental review: If a tribe has carried out an environmental review on a 

NAHASDA-funded project consistent with the applicable HUD requirements, 

that review will satisfy the environmental review requirements from other federal funding sources. This amendment will greatly reduce redundancy in environmental reviews, also allowing for more funding to be used for constructing 

homes rather than administrative requirements.

• Binding commitments: Binding commitments would no longer be required for 

funds utilized on privately owned homeownership units if aggregate cost is less 

than $10,000 over a five year period. While KTHA supports a larger cut-off (of 

$40,000), this amendment will also save time and resources.

• Conversion of rental unit to homebuyer unit: If a family initially occupied a rental unit as a low-income family, but later gains enough income to exceed the lowincome threshold, that family can still convert to a homebuyer for that same 

unit without having to re-qualify as low-income. This amendment is necessary 

so that we don’t punish those tribal members who succeed in bettering their financial circumstances.

• Total Development Costs: Authorizes recipients to exceed total development cost 

caps by 20 percent (under current HUD regulations, it is 10 percent). This language should allow some additional use of energy efficient building designs and 

materials that we were prevented from doing so by TDC caps.

• Self-Monitoring: The self-monitoring requirement would be changed from annually to every other year, except for subrecipients, who must be monitored by the 

recipient every year. This amendment will help reduce the administrative burden on our housing programs.

• Indian Veterans’ Housing Assistance Demonstration Project: HUD would be authorized to take up to 5 percent of the rental assistance amounts appropriated 

under the 1937 Act to establish an Indian Veteran specific housing assistance 

voucher program for the benefit of Indian veterans who are homeless or at-risk 

of homelessness and who are residing on or near Indian lands. The program 

would be operated by IHBG recipients. This amendment is an important 

change, and provides much needed support to our vulnerable Indian veterans.

• Low Income Housing Tax Credits Preference. Section 42(m)(1) of the Internal 

Revenue Code would be amended to require states to provide preference to applicants for Low Income Housing Tax Credits who are tribes, TDHEs, or entities 

whollyowned by tribes/TDHEs, or subrecipients of tribes/TDHEs. There would 

also be a preference for projects being developed in Indian areas as defined by 

NAHASDA. This amendment should assist in moving tribal applications forward in states, like California, that do not have a good track record of awarding 

LITHC to Indian tribes.

• Indian Community Development Block Grant Eligibility for TDHEs: TDHEs 

would be defined as Community-Based Development Organizations eligible to 

apply directly for ICDBG funding. KTHA supports this attempt to facilitate 

ICDBG funding to TDHEs.

• Cherokee Nation funding: The restriction on the Cherokee Nation receiving 

IHBG funds, which was tied to resolution of the ‘‘Cherokee Freedmen’’ issue, 

would be removed.

• Native Hawaiian NAHASDA: The title providing for a Native Hawaiian housing 

program would be restored.

• Matching or Cost Participation: IHBG funds would qualify to be used as matching or cost participation funds for projects where other federal or non-federal 

funding is conditioned on having matching or cost participation funds included.

Important Self-Determination Proposals Not Included in S. 1352

There are a number of important self-determination proposals that have been proposed by Indian country, by which are not included in S. 1352. We hope that you 

will consider these as you markup S. 1352. These proposals include:

• 30 percent maximum rental payment requirement. The Senate Bill does not contain any language eliminating or modifying the 30 percent rule.

• Exclusions from adjusted income. S. 1352 does not contain authorization for 

tribes/TDHEs to adopt exclusions from adjusted income (which is the basis for 

determining income eligibility) through policy rather than through Indian Housing Plans, which require HUD approval.

• Timelines for HUD to act and ‘‘deemed approved’’ provisions. The NAIHC bill 

included timelines for HUD to act with regard to certain waiver or approval reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Dec 17, 2013 Jkt 085897 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\85897.TXT JACK
40

quests, and provided that request is ‘‘deemed approved’’ if HUD fails to act 

within timeline. None of those provisions were included in S. 1352.

• HUD Section 3 requirements. The NAIHC bill proposed excluding applicability 

of HUD Section 3 requirements (to hire low-income persons in the community 

for construction and development of projects) where tribe has adopted tribal 

preference in employment and contracting standards of its own. This provision 

was not included in S. 1352.

• Reserve Accounts. S. 1352 does not include the NAIHC-proposed language that 

would expand the purposes for which reserve accounts can be used beyond just 

administration and planning.

• Adding ‘‘maintaining units’’ to definition of affordable housing activities. S. 1352 

does not include the NAIHC-proposed language that would add ‘‘maintaining’’ 

dwelling units to the list of affordable housing activities authorized under 

NAHASDA.

• Insurance requirements. S. 1352 does not include the NAIHC-proposed language 

that would limit the tribe/TDHE insurance requirements and maintenance policy requirements to those units owned or managed by the tribe/TDHE (excluding from this requirement homes that are only ‘‘assisted’’ with NAHASDA 

funds).

• Binding commitments. S. 1352 does not include the NAIHC-proposed language 

that would require the form of ‘‘binding commitment’’ necessary for useful life 

to be developed by negotiated rulemaking rather than—as in current language—complete discretion of HUD.

• LOCCS edits. S. 1352 does not include the NAIHC-proposed language that 

would require that HUD give notice and opportunity for a hearing before imposing a ‘‘LOCCS edit’’ on a recipient’s funds.

• Statute of Limitations on enforcement actions: S. 1352 does not include the 

NAIHC-proposed language that would impose a three year statute of limitations 

on HUD enforcement actions.

• Recaptured funds. S. 1352 does not include the NAIHC-proposed language that 

would require that any IHBG funds recaptured by HUD in an enforcement action be redistributed to the other tribes/TDHEs, rather than simply going back 

to the Treasury general fund, or that would prohibit HUD from recapturing 

funds for any reason if the funds have already been expended on affordable 

housing activities.

• Training and Technical Assistance funding. S. 1352 does not include the 

NAIHCproposed language that would require that any training or technical assistance funds that are not distributed to a regional entity go to NAIHC.

Conclusion 

NAHASDA represents great progress toward the goal of self-determination and 

has provided tribes and TDHEs with important tools for meeting the vast housing 

needs in Indian Country. However, the S. 1352 amendments to NAHASDA are 

needed to increase flexibility and efficiencies in ways that will enable tribes and 

TDHEs to do even more in this arena. The need is there in Indian Country and we 

look forward to working with the Committee on the best ways to address it. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TONI ANN BREND, CHAIRPERSON, COQUILLE INDIAN

HOUSING AUTHORITY; VICE CHAIRPERSON, COQUILLE TRIBAL COUNCIL

Greetings Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice-Chairman Barrasso and distinguished 

members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. My name is Toni Ann Brend, 

and I am the Chairperson of the Coquille Indian Housing Authority (CIHA) and the 

Vice Chairperson of the Coquille Tribal Council, the governing body of the Coquille 

Indian Tribe. I am honored to provide these comments as testimony for the Legislative Hearing in support of the reauthorization of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) and in support of S. 1352, 

which contains amendments to NAHASDA to make it even stronger. 

On behalf of the Coquille Indian Tribe and the Coquille Indian Housing Authority, 

I would like to thank the Chairwoman and the members of the Committee for introducing S. 1352, and for establishing the reauthorization of NAHASDA as a priority 

legislative item for the Committee. In particular, we would like to thank the Chairwoman for her efforts to provide resources to meet the severe needs for housing assistance in Indian Country. The housing needs for the Coquille Indian Tribe, and 

across Indian Country, are extreme. NAHASDA has provided CIHA with tools to 

41

make notable progress in meeting the housing needs of our Tribe, but there is still 

a significant unmet need that is far too large. Reauthorization of NAHASDA provides a necessary opportunity to strengthen the Act by increasing its flexibility and 

efficiency, but reauthorization is not enough. NAHASDA must also be funded in accordance with the dire housing needs in Indian Country. 

The Coquille Indian Tribe is located along the southern coast of Oregon, along the 

Coquille River watershed and lower Coos Bay, the lands inhabited by our elders and 

ancestors since time immemorial. In the 19th Century, members of our tribe were 

forcibly relocated to the Siletz Reservation, but a number of them escaped and made 

their way back to our homelands. Our Tribe was one of the many in Western Oregon subjected to the misguided policy of ‘‘termination’’ in the 1950s. But we never 

lost our identity as a tribe and as a people, and in 1989 were finally successful in 

obtaining restoration of our federal recognition from Congress. 

One of the first steps our Tribe took, when it reorganized as a federally recognized 

tribe, was to establish the Coquille Indian Housing Authority, so that we could 

begin providing housing for our people. In the mid-1990s, when we obtained lands 

for our reservation, the Coquille Indian Housing Authority immediately embarked 

on an ambitious course of construction and development, turning 62 acres of former 

forest lands into a new homeland for our people through a mixed income residential 

development. 

The Coquille Indian Housing Authority—Programs and Unmet Needs 

Since the passage of NAHASDA, CIHA has developed a broad range of housing 

services, using the flexibility in the Act to meet the needs of our service population 

in the most efficient manner possible. We have constructed and operate a low-income housing development on our Tribal lands. We provide rental vouchers to lowincome Tribal members and other American Indians and Alaska Natives to find 

rental housing on the private market. We operate a lease-to-own homebuyer program that enables Tribal members to become homeowners. We provide homebuyer 

assistance and counseling. 

Despite these programs and the efforts of our staff, we still are unable to meet 

the need for housing for our people. We have long waiting lists for each of our programs. We simply do not have enough funding to build enough homes to meet the 

critical need out there. 

In NAHASDA, Congress expressly recognized the acute housing needs in Indian 

Country and in Indian communities, and Congress recognized that the provision of 

affordable houseing in safe and healthy environments is an essential element in the 

special role of the United States in helping tribes and their members to improve 

their housing conditions and socio-economic status. 

S. 1352—NAHASDA Reauthorization Bill 

First, let me emphasize that reauthorization of NAHASDA is a priority. As Congress has recognized repeatedly, Indian programs work best when Indian tribes 

have the authority to plan, implement, and administer federal programs and are 

freed from federal micromanagement. NAHASDA was enacted in 1996 to begin to 

implement the longstanding federal policy of tribal self-determination in the housing 

arena, and it is critical to continue that process. 

Despite the great progress that NAHASDA represents toward the goal of 

selfdetermination, amendments to NAHASDA are needed to increase flexibility and 

efficiencies in ways that will enable tribes and Indian housing authorities to stretch 

our underfunded block grants. We need the flexibility to identify and target our 

local needs, and we need to be free of micromanagement and overlapping and duplicative oversight requirements. 

S. 1352 includes many amendments which we support as a means to provide 

greater flexibility and to promote tribal self-governance and self-sufficiency. We do 

not oppose any of the proposed amendments, and we highlight several of the amendments we believe will have the greatest positive effect. We also offer suggested 

amendments to a few of the current proposals, which we believe will increase their 

effectiveness. Finally, we note that the discussion draft does not address certain 

issues which are very important to tribes and Indian housing authorities. While the 

proposed amendments may appear, at first sight, to merely be a laundry list of particulars, when you step back and look at the big picture, these amendments are integrated pieces of the larger goal inherent in NAHASDA—furtherance of tribal selfdetermination in meeting the housing needs of its members. I will address several 

of the proposed amendments to illustrate this point. 

Important Concepts Included in S. 1352

• Program income: Any income generated from program income (as opposed to 

being generated by IHBG funds) will be treated as nonprogram income and will 

42

have no restrictions. Currently, HUD treats income that is generated by program income as program income, with the attendant restrictions. Establishing 

greater flexibility in this area will spur innovation and development.

• Tribally determined prevailing wage rates: If a tribe has adopted prevailing 

wage rates applicable to a NAHASDA-funded project, those rates will apply to 

the entire project, including other federal funding sources. This amendment will 

greatly reduce redundancy in tracking and enforcing applicable wage rates, and 

allow for more funding to be used for constructing homes rather than administrative requirements.

• Environmental review: If a tribe has carried out an environmental review on a 

NAHASDA-funded project consistent with the applicable HUD requirements, 

that review will satisfy the environmental review requirements from other federal funding sources. This amendment will greatly reduce redundancy in environmental reviews, also allowing for more funding to be used for constructing 

homes rather than administrative requirements.

• Binding commitments: Binding commitments would no longer be required for 

funds utilized on privately owned homeownership units if aggregate cost is less 

than $10,000 over a five year period. While KTHA supports a larger cut-off (of 

$40,000), this amendment will also save time and resources.

• Conversion of rental unit to homebuyer unit: If a family initially occupied a rental unit as a low-income family, but later gains enough income to exceed the lowincome threshold, that family can still convert to a homebuyer for that same 

unit without having to re-qualify as low-income. This amendment is necessary 

so that we don’t punish those tribal members who succeed in bettering their financial circumstances.

• Total Development Costs: Authorizes recipients to exceed total development cost 

caps by 20 percent (under current HUD regulations, it is 10 percent). This language should allow some additional use of energy efficient building designs and 

materials that we were prevented from doing so by TDC caps.

• Self-Monitoring: The self-monitoring requirement would be changed from annually to every other year, except for subrecipients, who must be monitored by the 

recipient every year. This amendment will help reduce the administrative burden on our housing programs.

• Indian Veterans’ Housing Assistance Demonstration Project: HUD would be authorized to take up to 5 percent of the rental assistance amounts appropriated 

under the 1937 Act to establish an Indian Veteran specific housing assistance 

voucher program for the benefit of Indian veterans who are homeless or at-risk 

of homelessness and who are residing on or near Indian lands. The program 

would be operated by IHBG recipients. This amendment is an important 

change, and provides much needed support to our vulnerable Indian veterans.

• Low Income Housing Tax Credits Preference. Section 42(m)(1) of the Internal 

Revenue Code would be amended to require states to provide preference to applicants for Low Income Housing Tax Credits who are tribes, TDHEs, or entities 

whollyowned by tribes/TDHEs, or subrecipients of tribes/TDHEs. There would 

also be a preference for projects being developed in Indian areas as defined by 

NAHASDA. This amendment should assist in moving tribal applications forward in states, like California, that do not have a good track record of awarding 

LITHC to Indian tribes.

• Indian Community Development Block Grant Eligibility for TDHEs: TDHEs 

would be defined as Community-Based Development Organizations eligible to 

apply directly for ICDBG funding. KTHA supports this attempt to facilitate 

ICDBG funding to TDHEs. 

Markup Needed 

There are two changes that we would urge the Committee to consider during 

markup of this legislation, both of which are needed to effectively implement two 

of the amendments addressed above. 

First, the bill includes the language that Indian Country proposed to amend Section 105 (Environmental Review) to allow for NAHASDA-based environmental reviews to cover other funding sources, so as to reduce potential redundancy (Section 

102 of the bill). However, rather than include such language as a new section 105(e) 

as proposed, the Senate language would replace the existing 105(d). That section 

(existing 105(d)) contains the environmental review waiver provisions, which authorizes HUD under certain circumstances to waive the environmental review requirements. The waiver authority is an important provision that tribes and TDHEs 

43

have relied upon, and which has not been controversial—and the proposed amendment would eliminate that waiver authority. 

Proposed Revision: CIHA urges that the new language be inserted as a new 105(e) 

and not as a replacement for 105(d). 

Second, we have heard some concern expressed about potential ambiguity in the 

changes to Section 205, specifically the new 205(d) (Section 201 of the bill). We 

think that the ambiguity can be resolved with a couple of minor wording changes, 

as follows:

Proposed Revision: ‘‘(d) PURCHASE.—In the case of rental housing that is 

made available to a current rental tenant for conversion to a homebuyer or 

lease-purchase unit, the current rental tenant may purchase through a contract 

to purchase, lease-purchase agreement, or any other sales agreement so long as 

the current rental tenant was if the unit is made available for occupancy by a 

family that is a low-income family at the time of initial occupancy.’’

Important Self-Determination Proposals Not Included in S. 1352

There are a number of important self-determination proposals that have been proposed by Indian Country that are not included in S. 1352. We hope that you will 

consider these as you markup S. 1352. These proposals include:

• 30 percent maximum rental payment requirement: S. 1352 does not contain any 

language eliminating or modifying the 30 percent rule. When an Indian-specific 

housing program was created through NAHASDA, certain aspects of the prior 

1937 Housing Act were retained. One of these was the requirement that tribes 

may charge no more for rents than 30 percent of the adjusted annual income 

of households, NAHASDA Section 203(a), 25 U.S.C. § 4133(a). While this appears to be a common sense measure to ensure that affordable housing remains 

affordable, it is a concept that has not transferred over well to the NAHASDA 

framework. First and foremost, under the 1937 Housing Act Public Housing 

program, there is a specific line item for maintenance and operation of managed 

premises. There is no such appropriation under NAHASDA. Oftentimes the only 

funds that are available for maintenance and operations come from the rents 

that tribes and TDHEs are able to charge. But there are many low-income clients whose annual adjusted income (a term defined by the statute) is at or near 

zero, and therefore the rents that the tribe or TDHE can charge is zero or de 

minimis. Under the 30 percent rule, tribes and TDHEs are prohibited from 

charging a base administrative fee if that fee is in excess of 30 percent of income. Further, the work required to certify and recertify the annual adjusted 

income of each household in order to make appropriate adjustments to rent is 

substantial and burdensome. Moreover, the 30 percent rule applies where the 

tribe or TDHE is providing a rental or homebuyer subsidy to a tribal member 

in a unit owned or managed by another landlord. Thus, where a tribe or TDHE 

decides to undertake a rental assistance voucher program—like CIHA—we are 

required to provide a subsidy in a sufficient amount to ensure that the tenant 

or homebuyer is paying no more than 30 percent of their income. We are prohibited from providing a flat voucher amount (such as a payment of $200 per 

month per household in the program), which would enable us to spread our resources among more households. CIHA supports an amendment to NAHASDA 

that would eliminate or modify the application of the 30 percent maximum rent 

rule to Indian housing programs.

• Timelines for HUD to act and ‘‘deemed approved’’ provisions: The NAIHC bill 

included timelines for HUD to act with regard to certain waiver or approval requests, and provided that a request is ‘‘deemed approved’’ if HUD fails to act 

within timeline. None of those provisions were included in S. 1352.

• Reserve Accounts: S. 1352 does not include the NAIHC-proposed language that 

would expand the purposes for which reserve accounts can be used beyond just 

administration and planning.

• Adding ‘‘maintaining units’’ to definition of affordable housing activities: S. 1352 

does not include the NAIHC-proposed language that would add ‘‘maintaining’’ 

dwelling units to the list of affordable housing activities authorized under 

NAHASDA.

• Insurance requirements: S. 1352 does not include the NAIHC-proposed language 

that would limit the tribe’s/TDHE’s insurance requirements and maintenance 

policy requirements to those units owned or managed by the tribe/TDHE (excluding from this requirement homes that are only ‘‘assisted’’ with NAHASDA 

funds).

44

• LOCCS edits: S. 1352 does not include the NAIHC-proposed language that 

would require that HUD give notice and opportunity for a hearing before imposing a ‘‘LOCCS edit’’ on a recipient’s funds.

• Statute of Limitations on enforcement actions: S. 1352 does not include the 

NAIHCproposed language that would impose a three-year statute of limitations 

on HUD enforcement actions.

Conclusion 

NAHASDA represents great progress toward the goal of self-determination and 

has provided tribes and TDHEs with important tools for meeting the vast housing 

needs in Indian Country. However, the proposed S. 1352 amendments to NAHASDA 

are needed to increase flexibility and efficiencies in ways that will enable tribes and 

TDHEs to do even more in this arena. The need is there in Indian Country and we 

look forward to working with the Committee on the best ways to address it. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOE DURGLO, CHAIRMAN, CONFEDERATED SALISH

AND KOOTENAI TRIBES OF THE FLATHEAD INDIAN NATION


731b1.eps
45


731b2.eps

Income affordable housing under management to assist In meetingthe affardabl" housing 

needs ofthe members ofthe Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. The SKHA h~s several 

different programs and setvlcesthat are all under the umbrella of the SKHA such Cl5 the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs (BIA) Home Improvement Program (HIP) and the Indian Health Setvice (IHS) 

water and waste water services. With the SKIM being ourlDHE they oversee all of our 

programs and services that are funded through NAHA5DA. 

In regardsto th" R,,~uthorlz;jtion af NAHASDA j hiive same concerns to express In regards to 

the current Senate bfil known as 5.1352. Th" National American Indian Housing Council 

(NAIHe) undertook a lengthy process beginning about two years ago to goto each of the nine 

regIons of the U.S. and meet with Tribes and lDHE's to conduct an In-depth review ofthe 

NAHA5DA statute. The goal ofthls revIew was to see what NAHASDAstatute language needed 

to Ile revised or removed til make the program more respon5ive to ttl~ 11"''''',b ufTlliJe5. I think 

it Is important to mention that there were several Items that the Tribes ilnd TDHE's worked 

hard on proposed language that was removed from S. 1352. 

There ilre il couple of m<.lJor issues that I would liketo discuss that were notincludE!d In 5.1352 

but were drafted bvthe NA!HC and presented to Congress. Since the enactment of NAHASDA 

our Tribe has opposed the implementatIon of Section 203 of NAHA5DA that requires m<.lximum 

rents to not exceed 3D percent of the monthly adjusted income of a family participating in any 

rEntll program U5ing NAIiASDA funds. In the draftIanguClce from NAIHC we. had proposed two 

~Itern~tlv~s; either strIke the maximum rent requirement or alternative language was proposed 

that would allow 0 NAHASDA recipient to establish a reasonable minimum rental amount or 

administnrtivefeeto coverthe recipIent's basIc administrative costs"for m~naging the rental 
46


731b3.eps

unit even ifthellmount to be paid exceeded 30%. With the removal of this requirement we 

feel that ourtrlbal membership who relies on our Jow income rental housing would have to pay 

some minimum fee and would share in the responsibility towards the ownElcrship and 

m~lntenance of the tribal asset. With this reqUirement in the law there exists LIn CX~5s!ve 

amount of administrative duties to assure that the fumillesthat we serve do not eXG8ed the 

30% rule rl'!qulrement. If we were to eJlminate thl5 requIrement we would only hOlve to make 

sure that the families that 'We serie, when they' enter tHe program, are low Income fumilles. In 

a day and age where evervfamlly has at least one c~1I phone with a monthly bIll, If they claim 

zero income they live In a home and pay1.ero rent. It would only seem prudentforthe family 

toshare in the costto maintain the rental unit by paying a minimUm fE:E: to live In the home, I 

bennvn thLit the 30% rule is well intentioned but Tribes should hav!! the authority to SEt II rental 

amount that they reel Is appropriatE LIS we have the welfare of our tribal membershIp at heart 

in every decision we make. 

AnothEr issue of concern is the removal ofthe lanllLlage that requires Tribes to comply with 

Section 3 of the Housingand Urban Development Act of1968. What we hed proposed was an 

e~emption in SectIon 201 of NAHASDA that would have simply lndudnd Section 3 of the 

Housing and Urb~n DevelopmEnt Act of191i8 in the list of other Acts that are €)[empt for.TribES 

and TDHE's under NAHASDA. Without this e~emption HUD has determined that TrIbes and 

TDHE's arE required to comply with Section 3 of the Housing and Urban DevelopmEnt Act of 

1968. Section;l ofthe Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 requires that when HUD 

loans and grants are made and they require contracting opportunities that those projects or 

actIvities give preference to low and very low income persons or busInesses residing in the 
47


731b4.eps

community wheTe the project Is located. I ~m .!Me th~tthe Intent ofthls Act is well meanIng 

butthe HUD compt1ance procl!ssis very cumbersome. Tribes .nd TDHE"s are very oognizantof 

the need to provide employment opportunities iorthe low :md very low income folks in our 

communities. Our tribe has enacted a tribal ordinance that requires 011 oontractlngactlvltles on 

the Flathead Indian Nation must comply with the ordinance and provide employment 

opportunitie5 to our tribal membe~ We should not be required to oomply with this Actwhen 

the very nature of our tribal sDvereignty isto priivlde employment to our' tribal members. The 

unemployment and poverty rates on our I'Eservatlon are much higher than the state of 

Montana so our tribal government works hard ta provide employment when possible. 

The last Issue that I would like to address in 5.1352 is a proposed new section in NAHASDA from 

the NAIHe draft bill that was not Included in S.1352. The NAIHe draft bill language had 

proposed 11 new sectIon that would have ~ddres5Ed 1fle use of Indian Health ServiCE! (IHS) funds 

for sanitation fudlities constructIon with NAHASDA funded projects. There currently exists an 

old regulation that does not allow the use of IHSfundlngforthe construction of sanitation 

facilities In conjunction with NAHASDA funded (l"Ojects. The proposed language would have 

sImply stated that an Indian TrIbe may, In Its discretion, use lHS funds for the construction of 

sanitatIon fucliities with a NAHASDA funded pro:ect. Our tribe has experienced thIs Issue In the 

past when we are trying to construct housing developments with NAHASDA funds. ItJust 

seems like a simple fixto an issue that only causes problemsforTribes when them 1lrE! limited 

resources to build much needed housing and IH' has funds to construct sanitation fac11ltlesfor 

those hou~ing developments. Please reconsider the Indusion ofa new section in NAHASDA 
48


731b5.eps

that would ellowthe use of IHS funds forthe construction of sanitation fucilities with NAHASDA 

funded projects. me NAIHC draft has the language that would accomplish this. 

I wanted to mention th3t I am pleased tosee the indusion ofa new opportunity In S.1352In 

regards to the Indian Veterans Housing Rental AsSistance Demonstration Progr<lm. There is a 

great need here on our reservation to make sure that our tribal member veterans are properly 

housed. TheSKHA Boan! of commissioners enacted a policy that ourtribal member veterans 

get a preferericefor our 10\'1 Income reintiil'hi:fuslng. This demonstr'atiori program wlll provide 

an additional option forthose Tribes that are chosen to participate In the demlJnstr~tion 

program and it Is my hope that this program will prove to be valuable and will receive 

permanent authorization. I am glad to see this opportunity being pursued by both HUD and the 

Secretary of Veteran's Aff3irs to give Tribes access to the HUD Veterans Affairs Supportive 

HousIng (VASH) voucher program. 

J would like to mention an Issue that Is not necesgrily mlated ta the mauthorlzation of 

NAHASDA but is important to the Confedera~d salish and Kootenai Tribes. Attached to thIs 

testJmony Is a oopy of Resolution No. 13-029 that was passed by our trIbal oouncll back In 

October of last year. The Jssue 1s In regards to the change in th~ proooss that HUD provides 

tr.linJng and technical assistance to Tribes and WHE's. As you can see in the resolution our 

Tribal CouncJlls concerned by HUD changing the manner In which traInIng and technic~l 

assistance Is provided. TrIbes and TDHE's worked with HUD to include in NAHASDA Section 703 

which states that funds will be appropriated fOfClssistance for a natJonal organlz3tion 

repressntlng NatIve American housing Jnterests for providing training and technical assistance. 

1he idea behind section 703 goes along with the whole Idea behi!1d NAl-iASDA which is to giVE 
49


731b6.eps

Tribes the ability and responsibility to plan for and create their housing programs to solve their 

housing need. NAHASDA h<ls Setf-Dctarmin<ltion in the title and itls imperatlv~ that Tribes 

control all aspects of their housing program and that mustlndude the tralnlngandtethnical 

assIstance needs ohll Tribes <lnd TDHE's. Section 703 was included in the initial enactment of 

NAHASDA and training and technical assIstance funds haW! been going to a national 

organIzation representing NatlveAmerican housing Interests, tIlis organization is the National 

American Indian HOLisln-g Councll. I Would ask that the Senate Indian Affairs committee please 

review this issue and remedy this situation. The easiest way to remedy this situation isto 

Include language In the FY 2.014 and future Appropriation Acts that section 703 is fund"d "nd 

that no funds from NAHASDA will be used to fund HUD's Transformation Initiative fund. Please 

reView the language Included In our resolution that discusses the Executive Order 13175 that 

Tribes should be consulted when federal pol!clesimpactTrlb~s. I believe thattr~ining and 

technical assistancE is atthe heart ofcapadty building and Tribes need to be consulted when 

changes are made that limit or change the mannerln which th~y control how they buildtheir 

capacity to operate and maintain their housing program. 

I would like to conclude by thanking Senator cantwell and the members of the committee for 

holding this hearing and for providing an opportunityforTribes to comment. 
50


731b7.eps

Resolution No. 13-029 

RESOLUTION 

OFTHE GOlJERNING BODY OF 

iHE CONFEOERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRISES 

OFTHE FLATHEAD RESERVATION 

RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT FUNDING OF SECTION 703 OF NAHASDA FOR THETRAINING AND 

TECHNICAL ASSSl5TANCE PROGRAM 

SE IT RESOLVED BYTHETRI8Al. COUNCIL OFTHE CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAf 

TRIBES THAT: 

WHEREAS, tile Tribal council ofthl! Confederated Salish ~nd KootenalTrlbes 15the duly 

recognIzed governing body ohhl! Flathead Nation With the responslbllltyto insure safe, decent 

and affordable housing forthetribal members within the ~xterior boundaries of the Flathead 

Nation; and 

WHEREAS, the United States Congress recognized the need for housing assistance and 

economic development In Indian Country when It passed the Native AmerIcan HousIng 

AsSistance and self·Determlnation Act of 1996 [NAHASDA) as amended; and 

WHEREAS, NAHASDA clearly stams In Section 703 thllt funding be providQd to a natIonal 

organization representing Native AmeriClln housing Interests to provide training and 

technlCilI assistance,; and 

WHEREAS, tribes .md tribal hoUsing programs fully supported .md felt it Was essential 

to Include language In Section 703 of NAHASDA that created a responsive and 

effective trainIng and technh.:al aSSistance program that met their specific and unIque 

needs; and 

WHEREAS, this traInIng and technical asslstance Is I:!ssentlll! to tribes who provIde lowIncome housIng for its members through tile Indian Housing Block Grant [JHBG); and 

WHEREAS, this tr-lInlng and technical assistance Is eSsential for all of Indian CDuntry to 

allDW tribes to stay in compliance with regul~tions ofNAHASOA and to train their staff 

regarding hDusing regulat!ons, polldes, lind procedures; and 

WHEREAS, thl~ training and technical assistance has hlstoriClllly been provided by the 

NatIonal American Indian HOUsing council through Section 703 ofNAHASDAi and 
51


731b8.eps

WHEREAS, during FISCal Year 2012 budget and appropriations process, the Consre;s at the 

request ofthe Administration Included language that altered and changed the manner in 

whIch the training and technical assistance funding was to be appropriated ~ a ch<lnge 

that do!!S not support Section 703 ofNAHASDA; and 

WHEREAS, the Department of Housing and Urban Developmellt (HUD) OffiCI! of 

Native American Programs (ONA?) published a Notice of Funds AVlIllablllty (NOFA) 

on August 28, 2012 that ushers in major cli.mlles on the deUvery oftraining and 

technical assistance; ilnd 

WHEREAS, tha NOFAclJmpletelv alters that manner in whIch al! training and technical 

assistance will be provided to tribes and tribal housIng programs and this new 

program does not meet the standards of Section 703 of ~HASDA; and 

WHEREAS, EXecutive Order 13175 of Sept 23, 2004, requires consultation with 

Indian Tribal Governments and establishes policy In consulting and 

clJliaboratlng wIth Indian tribes through government-to- government 

relationships In order to establish regular and meaningful consultation and 

collaboration with tribal officials In the development offederal policies that have 

tribal impllcations, to strengthen the United States government-ttl-government 

relatIonships wIth Indian tribes; and 

WHEREAS, this ~hange to NAHASDAnealssitates a government-to- government 

consultation that will allow tribes the opportunity to provide input before changes to 

federal policies are Implement for an essentIal proEram designed to provide training 

and technIcal assistance in accordance with Section 703 ofNAHASDA; and 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Tribal council of the Confederated 

Salish and Kootenai Tribes strongly urges HUD·ONAP to halt the NOFA proces~ 

until trIbal leaders have an opportunity til pursue a protest that challenges HUDONAP's NOM to admInister FI5(;iIIYear2012 NAHASDA'straining and technical 

assistance program funds; and 

BE rr FURTHER RESOLVED, that th e Tribal Council of th I! Confederated 

Salish an d KootenaI Tribes urges HUD to begin an official tribal consultation 

before the end of calendar year 2012 in order to formulate a policy that meets the 

Unique needs of trIbal pt!oplcs and honlJrs Its responsibility to respect the tenets of 

tribal soverelgntv and the rights of self-determination 8slald out by law and treaty 

obligation. 
52

1There are 566 federally recognized Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages in the United 

States, all of which are eligible for membership in NAIHC. Other NAIHC members include 

state-recognized tribes eligible for housing assistance under the 1937 Housing Act and that were 

subsequently grandfathered in the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination 

Act of 1996, and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the state agency that administers 

the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHERYL A. CAUSLEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BAY MILLS

INDIAN HOUSING AUTHORITY; CHAIRWOMAN, NATIONAL AMERICAN INDIAN

HOUSING COUNCIL (NAIHC) 

Good afternoon Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and distinguished members of the Committee on Indian Affairs. Thank you for the opportunity to provide a written statement on S. 1352, a bill to reauthorize the Native 

American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) and for 

other purposes. 

My name is Cheryl Causley and I am the Executive Director of the Bay Mills Indian Housing Authority. I am an enrolled member of the Bay Mills Indian Community located in Brimley, Michigan, and am providing this statement as Chairwoman 

of the National American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC). 

Background on the National American Indian Housing Council 

The NAIHC was founded in 1974 and for four decades has provided invaluable 

training and technical assistance to all tribes and tribal housing entities; provided 

information to Congress regarding the issues and challenges that tribes face in the 

many issues of housing, infrastructure, and community and economic development 

arenas; and worked with key federal agencies to address these important issues. 

The membership of NAIHC is expansive, comprised of 274 members representing 

473 1 tribes and tribal housing organizations. NAIHC’s member tribes span the entire country from Florida to Alaska, from New Mexico to Maine and reside in each 

state represented by the Members of this Committee. Our members are deeply appreciative of the consistent leadership this Committee provides in Congress related 

to issues important to tribal communities. 

NAIHC’s primary mission is to support tribal housing entities in their efforts to 

provide safe, decent, affordable, and culturally appropriate housing for Native people. 

Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act 

Passage of NAHASDA in 1996 signaled a shift in the relationship between federal 

and tribal governments with respect to housing programs. NAHASDA is based on 


731b9.eps
53

tribal decisionmaking at the local level and has resulted in improved housing conditions throughout Indian Country. 

In enacting NAHASDA, Congress moved to address the housing crisis in Indian 

Country by consolidating federal housing programs into a single block grant made 

directly to Indian tribes or their tribally-designated housing entities (TDHEs). 

For over 17 years, NAHASDA has been the cornerstone for providing housing assistance to low-income families on Indian reservations, in Alaska Native villages, 

and on Hawaiian Home Lands. 

Essential Input from Practitioners 

Throughout 2012, NAIHC held a series of outreach meetings to gather input from 

tribal leaders, Indian housing professionals and advocates for consideration during 

reauthorization deliberations on Capitol Hill. NAIHC’s input relied heavily on individuals working in tribal housing management who possess the extensive experience 

necessary to assess NAHASDA’s original intent and to take the lead in discussions 

on best practices and barriers (within NAHASDA) that Indian housing directors face 

on a regular basis. 

The outreach facilitated in-depth, ongoing discussions to assess the effectiveness 

of the Act, its individual components, and its rules and regulations in meeting its 

intended purpose(s). The objective of this extensive outreach process was to have a 

reauthorized Act that more effectively accomplishes its objectives. 

Input from this year-long process was catalogued and developed into a consensus 

reauthorization bill. NAIHC maintained regular communication with Members of 

Congress and staff throughout this process and shared copies of provisions and reasoning for those provisions in draft legislative language. In summary, NAIHC’s proposed NAHASDA reauthorization is designed to strengthen tribal self-determination 

and remove agency-created barriers by establishing timelines for departmental approvals and streamlining administrative processes. NAIHC has partnered with the 

National Congress of American Indians on NAHASDA reauthorization efforts in 

order to ensure tribal leadership remain at the forefront of these important legislative activities. 

S. 1352, To Reauthorize the Native American Housing Assistance and SelfDetermination Act 

NAIHC appreciates efforts to enhance and further tribal self-determination in the 

NAHASDA reauthorization bill. Several proposed amendments aimed at removing 

barriers and streamlining processes to implement Indian housing development are 

not included in S. 1352, and we respectfully request they be reconsidered

• Language to enforce departmental deadlines currently set forth in NAHSADA;

• Language authorizing Indian tribes, in their discretion, to use funds appropriated to the Indian Health Service to construct sanitation facilities for housing assisted with HUD funds.

• Language clarifying that the Act’s minimum rent requirement do not apply if 

a block grant recipient has a written policy governing rents or homebuyer payments charged for housing units, and such policy does not include a provision 

governing maximum rents or homebuyer payments.

• Language directing the Office of Native American Programs to develop and implement a policy that provides for Indian preference in opportunities for employment, vacancies, training and promotion.

Indian Country needs NAHASDA reauthorized because it directly affects the 

health of communities and well-being of Indian people nationwide. NAIHC stands 

ready to assist in the development and promotion of a more effective statute that 

will ultimately provide safe, quality, and affordable housing for tribal communities 

in the least restrictive manner. We encourage swift passage of NAHASDA reauthorization to provide our federal partners with the necessary tools to uphold its trust 

responsibility to Indian country. 

Conclusion 

In closing, I want to thank you Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice Chairman Barrasso, 

and all Members of the Committee for holding this hearing to reauthorize and extend NAHASDA to address ongoing housing challenges throughout Indian Country. 

We appreciate your strong support for the NAHASDA programs and your ongoing 

commitment to Indian tribes and their members. 

54

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOBIE M. K. MASAGATANI, CHAIRMAN, HAWAIIAN HOMES

COMMISSION

Aloha Chairwoman Cantwell, Vice-Chairman Barrasso, and distinguished members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. Thank you for this opportunity to 

provide this testimony on behalf of the Hawaiian Homes Commission, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, and the 37,000 native Hawaiian beneficiaries of our 

land trust. We strongly support the reauthorization of NAHASDA as it has provided 

tools and resources to native communities across the country to help meet the needs 

for safe and affordable housing. 

Since the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands began receiving resources 

through Title VIII of NAHASDA in 2001, we have used this funding to support 

home construction activities (including homes, roads, sewers, street lighting, and 

utilities); direct loans to income-eligible families; individual development accounts; 

down payment assistance; subsidies for home rehabilitation; and administrative cost 

support to non-profits who provide self-help home construction; home repair training; financial counseling; and home energy efficiency training services. Over 1,400 

low-income families have benefited from this program and, in many cases, homeownership would not have been possible without NAHASDA support. 

In consideration of the $630,000 median price of a single-family house on the island of Oahu, we are currently launching several new programs using NAHASDA 

funds to help families who simply cannot afford housing. One program couples the 

purchase packaged home kits with construction financing to provide families the opportunity to own a home for less than $200,000. Another program under development is a rental (with option to purchase) that will leverage NAHASDA funds with 

low-income housing tax credits and other State resources. 

Our program was established be the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act by the 

U.S. Congress in 1921. This Act set aside 200,000-plus acres of land in the then 

Federal territory to return the native people of Hawaii to their lands. The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands has administered this trust since statehood in 1959. 

On December 27, 2000, the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act (P.L. 106–569) 

amended NAHASDA by adding a new title, ‘‘Housing Assistance for Native Hawaiians.’’ Title VIII authorized the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program, 

which is parallel to the Indian Housing Block Grant program, and serves families 

eligible to reside on the Hawaiian Home Lands. Native Hawaiians share many of 

the same attributes as our American Indian and Alaska Native counterparts: our 

housing needs are significant and our trust lands require significant infrastructure 

to realize new housing developments. 

In closing, we recognize how NAHASDA has expanded the collective capacity of 

tribes and native communities to address housing and infrastructure needs. Although we continue to leverage Housing Block Grant dollars with State and other 

Federal funding, housing needs for native Hawaiian families remain unmet. For this 

reason, we support the reauthorization of NAHASDA and we appreciate your continued support of housing and native communities. Mahalo nui loa.

Æ